Glenn Beck
NY Post
1. "Obama criticized pork barrel spending in the form of 'earmarks,' urging changes in the way that Congress adopts the spending proposals. Then he signed a spending bill that contains nearly 9,000 of them, some that members of his own staff shoved in last year when they were still members of Congress. 'Let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability,' Obama said." -- McClatchy, 3/11
2. "There is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments." -- Obama during the campaign.
3. This year's budget deficit: $1.5 trillion.
4. Asks his Cabinet to cut costs in their departments by $100 million -- a whopping .0027%!
5. "The White House says the president is unaware of the tea parties." -- ABC News, 4/15
6. "Mr. Obama is an accomplished orator but is becoming known in America as the 'teleprompt president' over his reliance on the machine when he gives a speech." -- Sky News, 3/18
7. In early February, the 2010 census was moved out of the Department of Commerce and into the White House, politicizing how federal aid is distributed and electoral districts are drawn.
8. Obama taps Nancy Killefer for a new administration job, First Chief Performance Officer -- to police government spending. But it surfaces that Killefer had performance issues of her own -- a tax lien was slapped on her DC home in 2005 for failure to pay unemployment compensation tax on household help. She withdrew.
9. Turkey tried to block the appointment of Anders Fogh Rasmussen as new NATO secretary general because he didn't properly punish the Danish cartoonist who caricatured Mohammed. France's Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany's Angela Merkel were outraged; Obama said he supported Turkey's induction into the European Union.
10. . . . and he never mentioned the Armenian genocide.
11. The picture of Obama and Hugo Chavez shaking hands.
12. Hugo Chavez gave him the anti-American screed "The Open Veins of Latin America." Obama didn't remark upon it. At least it wasn't DVDs.
13. Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega went on a 50-minute anti-American rant, calling Obama "president of an empire." Obama didn't leave the room. "I thought it was 50 minutes long. That's what I thought," he said.
14. Executives at AIG get $165 million in bonuses, despite receiving an $173 billion taxpayer bailout.
15. "For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts. It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back." -- Associated Press, 3/18
16. "After pushing Congress for weeks to hurry up and pass the massive $787 billion stimulus bill, President Obama promptly took off for a three-day holiday getaway." -- New York Post, 2/15
17. MEGHAN CLYNE ON: "I WON" AND THE DEATH OF BIPARTISANSHIP
"Obama soared to victory on the hopeful promise of a new era of bipartisanship. During his inaugural address he even promised an 'end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.'
"Too bad it took all of three days for the promise to ring hollow.
"Start with Obama's big meeting with top congressional leaders on his signature legislation -- the stimulus -- on the Friday after his inauguration. Listening to Republican concerns about overspending was a nice gesture -- until he shut down any hopes of real dialogue by crassly telling Republican leaders: 'I won.' Even the White House's leaking of the comment was a slap at the Republican leadership, who'd expected Obama to adhere to the custom of keeping private meetings with congressional leadership, well, private.
"It's only gone downhill from there. The stimulus included zero Republican recommendations, and failed to get a single House Republican vote.
"It's not just the tactic of using Republicans for bipartisan photo-ops, and then cutting them loose before partisan decisions, that irks Obama's opponents. The new president wasted no time rushing forward with policies and legislation guaranteed to drive Republicans nuts. The first bill he signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- a partisan hot-button that drew all of eight Republican supporters in the entire Congress. Then there was the swift reversal of Bush policies on abortion and embryonic-stem-cell research -- issues dear to the Republican base.
"And when Obama and the Democrats in Congress took up SCHIP -- the children's health-insurance bill that Republicans say vastly expands government's role in health care -- they had an easy chance for real bipartisanship. After all, the bill had been hashed out in the previous Congress, and a bipartisan accord was reached before President Bush responded with a veto. Did the Obama team push for the compromise version in the 111th Congress? Nope. They went back to the drawing board, ramming through the Democrats' dream version.
"Of course, the lack of bipartisanship isn't limited to Capitol Hill. Obama has taken gratuitous swipes at the Republicans who recently decamped Washington, blaming President Bush for everything from the economy and the war to the lack of sufficient puppies and rainbows. And who could forget the Rush Limbaugh flap -- in which Obama's top advisers, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, orchestrated a public relations campaign meant to undermine the Republican National Committee chairman, Michael Steele, by framing talk-radio personality Limbaugh as the real head of the Republican Party.
"For now, Obama's back-pedal on the bipartisanship promise just makes him look insincere. But the real consequences of the mistake will be felt soon enough. As Presidents Bush and Clinton could tell him, congressional majorities do change -- and at some point, Obama will need Republicans on his side. He'd be smart to spend his second 100 days making up for the serious snubs of his first."
-- Meghan Clyne is a DC-based writer.
18. "The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today." -- Department of Homeland Security intelligence report
19. Nixes a "buy American" provision in the stimulus bill.
20. "Yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn't have a drug war going on. Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there." -- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The 9/11 hijackers did not come across the Canada border
21. "The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for overhauling the health care system. The proposal is politically problematic for President Obama, however, since it is similar to one he denounced in the presidential campaign as 'the largest middle-class tax increase in history.' " -- New York Times, 3/14
22. JOE SCARBOROUGH ON: PROMOTING FEAR
"During his historic inaugural speech, Barack Obama promised to usher in a transformational age where hope would replace fear, unity would overtake partisanship, and change would sweep aside the status quo. But early in President Obama's first 100 days it is obvious that the only thing that is changing is the Candidate of Change, himself.
"The same politician who proclaimed during his inauguration that 'on this day we have chosen hope over fear' soon warned Americans that the US economy would be forever destroyed if the stimulus bill was voted down.
"Why was it that same man who promised to put Americans' interests ahead of his own political ambitions chose instead to use the suffering of citizens to advance his agenda?
"Maybe he was following the guidance of Rahm Emanuel, who famously said, 'You never want to waste a good crisis.'
"They didn't.
"The White House's warnings were so over-the-top that Bill Clinton felt compelled to warn the new president against making such grim pronouncements. Americans would quickly warn that the White House would not channel FDR's eternal optimism but rather embrace the gloomy worldview of Edgar Allen Poe.
"The Candidate of Hope also quickly adopted the Nixonian worldview that Americans voted their fears rather than their hopes. Over Mr. Obama's first 100 days, that cynical calculation paid off politically for a White House that seemed most interested in appeasing the most liberal members of his Democratic Party.
"I expected more from Barack Obama. For the sake of my country, I hope I get it from the new president over the next 100 days."
-- Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and author of "The Last Best Hope: Restoring Conservatism and America's Promise" (Crown Forum), due out June 9.
23. Sanjay Gupta was in discussions to become Surgeon General, but the TV personality withdrew after he was criticized for his flimsy political record.
24. Rasmussen finds 58% of Americans believe the Obama administration's release of CIA memos endangers the national security of the United States.
25. Only 28% think the Obama administration should do any further investigating of how the Bush administration treated terrorism suspects.
26. "Obama thanked CIA employees for their work and said they're invaluable to national security. He explained his decision to release the memos, then told everyone not to feel bad because he was now acknowledging potential mistakes. Theirs, not his. 'That's how we learn,' Obama said, as though soothing a room full of fourth-graders." -- The Oklahoman, 4/23
27. By releasing the torture memos, Obama opened American citizens up to international tribunals. A UN lawyer said the US is obliged to prosecute lawyers who drafted the memos or else violate the Geneva Conventions.
28. In their first meeting, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave Obama a carved ornamental penholder from the timbers of the anti-slavery ship HMS Gannet. Obama gave him 25 DVDs that don't work in Europe.
29. TIM CARNEY ON: PICKING BILL RICHARDSON AS SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
"Richardson's value in Obama's Cabinet had everything to do with appearances. First, he was the Hispanic pick. Second, because Richardson had run against Obama for President, tapping him for the Cabinet helped the media write the Obama-Lincoln comparisons by burnishing the 'Team of Rivals' image.
"But Richardson withdrew before Obama was even inaugurated when news came out about a criminal investigation involving David Rubin, president of a firm named Chambers, Dunhill, Rubin & Co. (although there was no Chambers or Dunhill), who had donated at least $110,000 to Richardson's campaign committees and had also profited from $1.5 million in contracts from the state government.
"This was an early warning sign about Obama's vetting process (various tax problems and the Daschle problem would reveal this as a theme), but picking Richardson to run Commerce also highlighted that Obama and Richardson's promise of 'public-private partnerships' -- such as Detroit bailouts, Wall Street bailouts, and green energy--was an open door for corruption and was at odds with Obama's promise to diminish the influence of lobbyists.
"The Richardson mistake was one of Obama's first, and it was emblematic. Richardson embodied Obama's attention to self-image and the problems inherent in his vision of an intimate business-government connection."
-- Tim Carney is a Washington Examiner columnist
30. Timothy Geithner nomination as Secretary of Treasury was almost torpedoed when it was discovered he had failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes. He also employed an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper. He was confirmed anyway.
31. . . . Not so lucky, Annette Nazareth, who was nominated for Deputy Treasury Secretary. She withdrew her name for undisclosed "personal reasons" after a monthlong probe into her taxes . . .
32. . . . or Caroline Atkinson, who withdrew as nominee for Undersecretary of International Affairs in Treasury Department, with a source blaming the long vetting process. Geithner still has a skeleton crew at Treasury, with no one qualified -- or willing -- to take jobs there.
33. "Barack Obama has been embroiled in a cronyism row after reports that he intends to make Louis Susman, one of his biggest fundraisers, the new US ambassador in London. The selection of Mr. Susman, a lawyer and banker from the president's hometown of Chicago, rather than an experienced diplomat, raises new questions about Mr Obama's commitment to the special relationship with Britain." -- Telegraph, 2/22
34. Obama's doom-and-gloom comments and budget bill push the Dow below 7,000, from which it's only recently recovered.
35. "You're sitting here. And you're -- you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, 'I mean, he's sitting there just making jokes about money--' How do you deal with -- I mean: Explain. Are you punch-drunk?" -- Steve Kroft, "60 Minutes," 3/22
36. "We have begun to modernize 75% of all federal building space, which has the potential to reduce long-term energy costs by billions of dollars on behalf of taxpayers. We are providing grants to states to help weatherize hundreds of thousands of homes, which will save the families that benefit about $350 each year. That's like a $350 tax cut." -- Obama, describing something that doesn't cut taxes.
37. "The Obama administration has directed defense officials to sign a pledge stating they will not share 2010 budget data with individuals outside the federal government." -- Defense News, 2/19
38. Backtracking on a campaign promise he made to black farmers, Obama significantly lowered the amount of money they could claim in a discrimination settlement against the Agricultural Department. "I can't figure out for the life of me why the president wouldn't want to implement a bill that he fought for as a US senator," said John Boyd, head of the National Black Farmers Association.
39. "I've been practicing bowling. I bowled a 129. It was like the Special Olympics or something." -- Obama on "The Tonight Show"
40. Obama lifts travel and remittance restrictions on Cuba.
41. Obama considers dropping the embargo on Cuba.
42. After warming signs from Raul Castro, Fidel Castro says Obama "misinterpreted" his brother's words, and that Cuba would not be willing to negotiate about human rights.
43. Obama is considering dropping a key demand to Iran, allowing it to keep nuclear facilities open during negotiations.
44. In a letter to Dmitri Medvedev, Obama offered to drop plans for a missile shield in Europe in exchange for Russia's help in resolving the nuclear weapons issue in Iran.
45. Medvedev said he would not "haggle" on Iran and the missile shield.
46. Obama asked Congress for an extra $83.4 billion to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a special funding measure of the kind he opposed while in the senate. As a candidate, Obama promised to cut the cost of military operations.
47. After trying to woo Europe as the "anti-Bush," Obama made an impassioned plea for more troops in Afghanistan. "Europe should not simply expect the United States to shoulder that burden alone," he said. "This is a joint problem it requires a joint effort." Only the UK offered substantial help, most others refused.
48. "While the online question portion of the White House town hall was open to any member of the public with an Internet connection, the five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama's campaign in 2008." -- Washington Post, 3/27
49. Obama bows to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London.
50. "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah." -- An Obama aide
51. DANA PERINO ON: REMAINING IN CAMPAIGN MODE
"Has it really only been 100 days? In many ways it feels like a lot longer.
"That's partly because the new administration remains in campaign mode most of the time. Now that's not in itself a bad thing if you can do that and accomplish your agenda. But what's happened is that a popular new president has laid out a very bold agenda in the midst of an economic crisis, and I don't think Congress is going to get a lot of work done on those big ticket items this year. They'll eke out a couple of small wins on issues like healthcare and maybe energy, but the Democrats will hail them as big victories. The Republicans have been working like a cohesive and loyal opposition party, and they need to continue to outline positive new ideas like the recent one to help grow American's savings.
"The early stumbles on the administration's high profile nominations -- Daschle and Richardson for just to examples -- acted like weights around their ankles. In addition, the partisan shots from the White House were unbecoming and I don't think we'll see more of that. Our allies and our enemies -- heck, even we ourselves -- are trying to understand the new foreign policy direction, which in some ways seems to be change just for the sake of change. The next moves by the leaders of other countries -- like Iran, North Korea and Venezuela -- probably will prove that really not much will change just because America has a new president.
"In many ways, it's the next 100 days that will tell us more about our new president and what he'll be able to accomplish than we can forecast based on the first 100 days."
-- Dana Perino was White House press secretary in the Bush Administration
52. "We can't afford to make perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary." -- Obama, describing the stimulus bill
53. Three candidates for ambassador to the Vatican -- including Caroline Kennedy -- were turned down by the Holy See because they supported abortion, according to reports.
54. After saying he wouldn't have lobbyists in his administration, Obama made 17 exceptions in the first two weeks in office.
55. . . . including Tom Daschle, who worked as a top lobbyist yet was going to be appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services -- until his failure to pay income taxes derailed his nomination.
56. For an April 14 speech at Georgetown, the administration asked the university to cover up all signs and symbols -- including the letters "IHS" in gold, a symbol for Jesus.
57. Samantha Power, who resigned from the Obama campaign after calling Hillary Rodham Clinton a "monster," was hired to a position on the National Security Council.
58. "Chicago has yet to recoup the $1.74 million cost of President Obama's victory celebration in Grant Park -- despite a burgeoning $50.5 million budget shortfall that threatens more layoffs and union concessions." -- Chicago Sun-Times, 2/20
59. Firing Rick Wagoner as president of GM.
60. Threatening to fire Vikram Pandit as CEO of Citigroup.
61. Threatening to fire anyone the administration doesn't like from any company.
62. Not adopting a dog from a shelter.
63. "The GAO study asserts that officials from most of the states surveyed 'expressed concerns regarding the lack of Recovery Act funding provided for accountability and oversight. Due to fiscal constraints, many states reported significant declines in the number of oversight staff -- limiting their ability to ensure proper implementation and management of Recovery Act funds.' " -- ABC News, 4/23
64. "The National Newspaper Publishers Association named Obama 'Newsmaker of the Year.' The president is to receive the award from the federation of black community newspapers in a White House ceremony this afternoon. The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press." -- Los Angeles Times, 3/20
65. "Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards." -- Attorney General Eric Holder
66. "I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances." -- Obama, on consulting with only "living" presidents
67. Obama quietly announced that he would not press for new labor and environmental regulations in the North American Free Trade Agreement, going back on a campaign promise.
68. NICOLE GELINAS ON: MISSPENT STIMULUS
"One of Obama's most poignant missed opportunities was in not using the historic $787 million stimulus package to reorder state and local government's spending priorities. As states and cities continue to spend ceaselessly and without results on education and healthcare, they're crowding out investments in the physical infrastructure that the private sector needs to rebuild the economy.
"In the stimulus, of the more than $200 billion that went directly to states and cities, nearly 70% went to education and healthcare spending. Only 24% went to infrastructure spending.
"But the states and cities in the most trouble already spend way too much on education and healthcare, pushing taxes up and sending private industry away. They don't spend nearly enough on infrastructure, which attracts the private sector and builds the real economy.
"As David Walker, former comptroller general of the US, said at the Regional Plan Association's annual meeting a week ago, nationwide, we are the 'highest in the world' on education. We are 'the highest in the world' on healthcare. 'Nobody comes even close.' On infrastructure, by contrast, we are 'below average' in both critical new investments and in much-needed maintenance spending.
"And, as Democratic governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell said at the same conference, when President Dwight Eisenhower left office, infrastructure spending was about 12.5% of non-military domestic spending. Today, it's about 2.5%.
"This shortfall is obvious to anyone who's ridden on an "express train" to the outer boroughs or driven on the Cross Bronx Expressway recently. But in New York, as elsewhere, the stimulus money has just allowed the state to ramp up spending on its wasteful, inhumane Medicaid program and its nosebleed public-school spending.
"Meanwhile, the subways are about to crumble into oblivion -- taking the economy with them. The same is true of decaying infrastructure in California and in aging states across the nation.
"The stimulus was a once-in-a-generation chance to change this. Instead, it made the situation worse."
-- Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to City Journal
69. "The Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to overrule Michigan v. Jackson, the 1986 Supreme Court decision that held that if police may not interrogate a defendant after the right to counsel has attached, if the defendant has a lawyer or has requested a lawyer. This isn't the first time the Justice Department, under President Obama, has sought to limit defendants' rights." -- TalkLeft blog
70. "By any measure, my administration has inherited a fiscal disaster." -- Obama
71. "Ahh, see. I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here." -- Brushing off questions from the White House press corps
72. On Earth Day, Obama took two flights on Air Force One and four on Marine One to get to Iowa, burning more than 9,000 gallons of fuel.
73. "President Obama's plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs for the treatment of troops injured in service has infuriated veterans groups who say the government is morally obligated to pay for service-related medical care." -- Fox News, 3/17
74. "And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it." -- Obama during his first State Of The Union address. A German invented the automobile
75. RALPH PETERS ON: FUMBLING IN AFGHANISTAN, FAKING IT IN PAKISTAN
"We're squandering blood and treasure in Afghanistan. Instead of concentrating fiercely on the vital task of destroying al Qaeda and its friends, the Obama administration's determined to erect a modern nation where no nation exists. Afghanistan isn't a country. It's a dysfunctional reservation inhabited by tribes that hate each other. There's no 'Afghan' identity. And even if our blind-to-reality efforts succeeded perfectly, the result would be meaningless.
"Except as a target range where we can gun down terrorists, Afghanistan doesn't matter. Next door, Pakistan matters immensely. But we don't know what to do about it. With 170 million anti-American Muslims descending into chaos as Pashtuns, Baluchis, Punjabis, Sindhis and others claw each other over the country's shabby remains, Pakistan's corrupt president shrugs, its military cowers, its loathsome intelligence services collude with Islamist extremists, and the safety of its nuclear weapons grows doubtful.
"Pakistan may be this generation's chamber of horrors.
"The Obama administration's response? Drill more wells in the Afghan countryside. Dramatically reinforce our troops in Afghanistan, sticking them with an impossible mission of modernizing a pre-medieval landscape while exposing them at the end of an insecure 1,500-mile supply line through, of all places, Pakistan.
"As for Pakistan itself, the Obama administration wants to send billions of dollars to a thieving government that makes Nigeria's look like a Quaker meeting and to hand Pakistan's military more arms -- weapons that might soon be used against us.
"Pakistan was a bad idea when it was created in 1947. It's a worse one now. Afghanistan wasn't even an idea, just an accident of where other borders ended. We can't 'save' either one -- because neither wants to be saved on our terms.
"Obama said the right things -- that Afghanistan isn't Iraq and that our goal should be the destruction of al Qaeda. But his policies just regurgitate our Iraq strategy (one he opposed) in a profoundly different context, while ambitious generals echo Vietnam-era calls for more forces.
"Our troops will do whatever we ask, to the best of their magnificent abilities. But we should ask them to do things that make sense. We need creative strategic thought, but we're succumbing to sheer inertia. And the presidet's supporters who howled that we should abandon Iraq to concentrate on their candidate's 'good war' don't seem to be volunteering to do any fighting. Menwhle, our presient's trpped himself inside his own campaign promiseing, Vietnam!"
-- Ralph Peters is the author of "Looking for Trouble: Adventures in a BeW" 77. "President Obama failed to consult Congress, as promised, before carving out exceptions to the omnibus spending bill he signed into law -- breaking his own signing-statement rules two days after issuing them -- and raised questions among lawmakers and committees who say the president's objections are unclear at best and a power grab at worst." -- Washington Times, 3/24
78. Adolfo Carrion was confirmed as Director of White House Office of Urban Affairs, but is serving under a cloud after allegations that he accepted thousands of dollars in cash from developers whose projects he approved.
79. KYLE SMITH ON: GOING AFTER RUSH LIMBAUGH
"Every so often an unfocused athlete forgets about the field of play and climbs into the stands. Ty Cobb did it. Ron Artest did it. Maybe no one did it with more sick flir than the greasy, furious Hanson Brothers who, in 'Slap Shot,' climbed into the stands to give a beatdown to a fan.
"In March, Barack Obama sent his own personal Hanson Brothers, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and spokesman Robert Gibbs, out to attack a non-politician -- Rush Limbaugh -- who was sitting innocently in the stands jeering the action. Limbaugh didn't even throw a cup of beer.
"Senior White House staffers, who have already fallen into the classic trap of paying more attention to polls than fixing the country's problems, had become obsessed with surveys showing that Limbaugh was an unpopular figure with swing voters. Pretty soon Emanuel and Gibbs developed Limbaugh Tourette's. To paraphrase Joe Biden's witty putdown of Rudy Giuliani, for a few days every sentence they uttered contained three things: a subject, a verb and Rush Limbaugh.
"El Rushbo, chuckling over his cigar as his ratings skyrocketed, could not have been more pleased if a picture had emerged of Obama wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt and burning the American flag on Harvard Square. Even that portion of the public that doesn't like Rush squirmed at the embarrassing spectacle of the president's men going all Mean Girls on an entertainer. George W. Bush's spokesmen maintained a dignified silence about Michael Moore. Picture them fanning out over the Sunday talk shows to denounce, and drive up the box-office receipts of, 'Fahrenheit 9/11.' Wouldn't you have loved that, Michael?"
-- Kyle Smith is a Post columnist
80. Forced banks that didn't want TARP money to take it, then added on stipulations about pay and government control after the fact. Secretly forced Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch, then allowed the bank to be criticized for overpaying.
81. "More than 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States," Obama said in Mexico, yet factcheck.org says, "The figure represents only the percentage of crime guns that have been submitted by Mexican officials and traced by U.S. officials. We can find no hard data on the total number of guns actually 'recovered in Mexico,' but US and Mexican officials both say that Mexico recovers more guns that it submits for tracing. Therefore, the percentage of guns 'recovered' and traced to US sources necessarily is less than 90%."
82. Obama: "[Jim Owens, the CEO of Caterpillar, Inc.], said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off." Jim Owens: "I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again."
83. "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." -- Obama in Strasbourg, France
84. Joe Biden: "If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, if we stand up there and we really make the tough decisions, there's still a 30% chance we're going to get it wrong."
85. Joe Biden: "You all worked for change. You wanted to see change. Well, that wasn't a hard thing to try to communicate to the American people. Obviously, obviously, we needed a change almost no matter who was running."
86. Joe Biden: "You know, I'm embarrassed. Do you know the Web site number? I should have it in front of me and I don't. I'm actually embarrassed."
87. "There are more than 6.5 million trucks in the United States. The program Congress terminated allowed 97 Mexican trucks to roam among them. Ninety-seven! Shutting them out not only undermines NAFTA. It caused Mexico to retaliate with tariffs on 90 goods affecting $2.4 billion in U.S. trade coming out of 40 states." -- Charles Krauthammer, 3/20
88. DAVID M. DRUCKER ON: BOWING TO CONGRESS
"Although the president possesses enormous political capital -- both because of high approval ratings and because his administration is still in its infancy -- he has generally declined to exercise it with Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, including when it comes to crafting legislation key to moving his agenda forward.
"Rather he has allowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) to craft legislation as they see fit -- even though the very bills in question were proposed by the president and involve key planks in his agenda. Among them were Obama's signature $787 billion economic stimulus bill, his first major piece of legislation that was signed into law in February; and now health care reform, currently being negotiated on Capitol Hill with minimal input from the White House.
"This soft-pedal style of leadership runs the risk of forcing Obama to embrace legislation constructed for narrow partisan interests rather than in a manner capable of garnering broad bipartisan support. Over time, the public might come to see Obama's deference to Pelosi and Reid as a weakness of leadership not befitting a president in tough times."
-- David M. Drucker is a staff writer for Roll Call
89. "It has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census, there are irresolvable conflicts for me." -- Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who became the second failed Commerce Secretary nominee
90. In the third sentence of his first speech as president, Obama said, "44 Americans have now taken the presidential oath." The correct number is 43, as Grover Cleveland served twice.
91. The $49 million inauguration -- triple what taxpayers spent at Bush's first inauguration.
92. Giving the Queen of England an iPod full of his own speeches.
93. Three prime-time briefings in his first 100 days, eating into television revenues and this Wednesday pre-empting "American Idol."
94. "The United States government has no interest in running GM. Your [GM] warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it's ever been, because starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warranty." -- Obama
95. GM is given $15.4 billion in loans from the government.
96. The Obama Administration is trying to scuttle a lawsuit filed in federal court against Iran by former US embassy hostages. The lawsuit alleges that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage-takers who interrogated the captives.
97. GLENN BECK ON: BAD ECONOMIC PREDICTIONS
"Ten days before his inauguration, the President's chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Rohmer, released a report describing what to expect economically during the first 100 days and beyond. It presented two starkly different scenarios: one good (if the stimulus were to be passed), and one terrifyingly bad (if we did nothing). Amazingly, the report estimated that if the stimulus package were to pass, the unemployment rate would not go above 8% at any time until at least 2014.
"It's already at 8.5%.
"In fact, while there is an acknowledged level of uncertainty, the projections estimated that the unemployment rate would be lower today if we had done nothing at all. This suggests one of two things: either the administration misjudged the seriousness of our economic problems, or the stimulus plan is actually making things worse. I suspect it's a little of both.
"Remember, when the President's budget was released, he was roundly criticized for his never ending deficits, even under his own optimistic scenarios for growth. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected deficits that were even uglier. But, if the President and his economic planners were this far off, this soon, how much worse does the future look now?
"The election was supposed to bring 'change,' but I was hoping for more than the letter after the President's name, the positivity of the media coverage, and the hypoallergenic qualities of the White House puppy. President Obama didn't get us into this situation, but so far he's doubling down on the same spending philosophy that did. Common sense tells us that new debt is not the cure for old debt. No matter what the slogans say, that won't change in 100 days or 100 years."
-- Glenn Beck is the host of the "Glenn Beck" show, weekdays at 5 p.m. on Fox News.
98. "Education Secretary Arne Duncan has decided not to admit any new students to the D.C. voucher program, which allows low-income children to attend private schools ... For all the talk about putting children first, it's clear that the special interests that have long opposed vouchers are getting their way." -- Washington Post, 4/11
99. Obama enrolled his daughters in a DC private school.
100. "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother." -- Obama to Rep. Peter DeFazio, after the Democratic congressman voted against the stimulus bill.
Due to an editing error, a portion of this piece originally was impropery credited to Sarah Palin, when it should have been attributed to Meghan Clyne.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
How to Lose a Friend in 100 Days
Lauri B. Regan
American Thinker
Israeli strategy is all too often constructed, if not dictated, by American foreign policy and in particular, the American President. How then could American Jews risk the survival of the State of Israel on a man who they knew befriended and listened to an anti-Semitic pastor for 20 years, surrounded himself with anti-Semitic friends and advisors, promised to unconditionally reach out to Israel's (and America's) enemies, and flip flopped on the status of Jerusalem? I have been clear that the status of Israel was too essential to the survival of the Jewish people to risk its continued existence with a vote for a man whose only redeeming quality was his ability to read eloquently (and sometimes too quickly) from a teleprompter. Shockingly, 78% of American Jews apparently disagreed and voted for Obama. What I have since concluded is that many of those liberal Jews were less concerned with the State of Israel than with their liberal values.
An analysis of the policies, statements and decisions made in these first 100 days of the Obama administration with regard to Middle East policy follows.
- While snubbing Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the upcoming AIPAC summit, Obama's first official phone call as POTUS was to Palestinian leader, President Mahmoud Abbas.
- After just seven days on the job, Obama signed an order allocating $20.3 million for Palestinian migration and refugee assistance.
- Shortly thereafter Obama decided to earmark $900 million to rebuild Gaza and strengthen the Palestinian Authority. Many liberals naively argued that Hamas would never see those funds and they would never be used to rebuild the arms shipment tunnels the Israelis attempted to destroy. It has since been reported that the Obama administration has asked Congress to amend U.S. law to enable the Palestinians to receive federal aid even if it forms a unity coalition with Hamas.
- Obama's first television interview was granted to the Saudi-funded al Arabiya TV.
For all of the American Jews that were thrilled when Hillary Clinton was selected as Secretary of State, apparently believing that she was a friend of Israel (completely forgetting her embrace of Arafat's wife, literally), her early comments chastising Israel for building settlements and exercising its right to demolish dozens of homes in East Jerusalem that were built illegally should have been illuminating. She stated:
"Clearly this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the 'road map'...It is an issue that we intend to raise with the government of Israel..."
Where were Clinton's public denunciations of Hamas rockets raining down on Southern Israel? (When I was in Sderot in March, we held the remnants of a missile that had landed just two weeks prior to our visit.) Perhaps Madam Secretary needs to be reminded that the "road map" calls for a complete cessation of violence by the Palestinians and recognition of Israel as a Jewish State, something that Abbas has firmly rejected in the face of a silent Obama administration.
Furthermore, can one imagine the administration publicly admonishing any other sovereign nation for the legal demolition of a few dozen illegally constructed homes? While in Israel I saw the neighborhood in question. The fact that Clinton took time to scold Israel on this "issue" would be laughable if people across the globe were not actually dying and being victimized by real human rights atrocities as to which the Obama administration is silent.
As if one scolding were not enough, Hillary again made her voice heard stating:
"For Israel to get the kind of strong support it is looking for vis-à-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts. They go hand in hand."
It is astonishing that America's "strong support" for its only ally in the Mideast which is threatened by a common enemy ruled by Islamic extremists and a fascist dictator is conditional. And if Ariel Sharon's ceding Gaza in return for the constant bombardment of thousands of rockets is standing on the sidelines, then perhaps I've been reading the wrong playbook because clearly the Obama administration's promise of change includes an entirely new game of reaching out to enemies while disregarding friends. Finally, the "blame Israel" for the conflicts resulting from the jihadist ideology permeating the Mideast is something that we expect from anti-Semites the world over but certainly not the government of the United States of America.
- Recently blowhard Joe advised Netanyahu that it would be "ill-advised" for Israel to defend itself against the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon obliterating Israel and its people.
- American Jews who could not stop kvelling when Obama selected Rahm Emmanuel as his chief of staff should have been outraged when Emmanuel officially threw Israel under the bus declaring:
"In the next four years there is going to be a permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it doesn't matter to us at all who is prime minister...Any treatment of the Iranian nuclear problem will be contingent upon progress in the negotiations and an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank territory."
In response to this comment, National Union chairman Ya'acov Katz wrote an admonishing letter to Emmanuel stating:
"For many Israelis, this report is a cause for worry because it reveals a condescending attitude toward our prime minister and Israeli public opinion. This is an attitude that Israel does not expect from a real friend such as the US..."
- Another hero of the Jewish community, special envoy to the Mideast George Mitchell, further proved the destructive path on which the Obama administration has embarked by stating his intent to include the Arab peace initiative into his Mideast policy. As Leo Rennert wrote in AT:
"According to Mitchell, creation of a Palestinian state, per se, will be the magic wand to bring peace to the region. George W. Bush, the first American president to endorse Palestinian statehood, had a quite different plan...before there could be a Palestine, there had to be guarantees that it really would be ‘untainted by terrorism.' That stipulation is gone from the Obama/Mitchell playbook.
"To make matters even worse for Israel, Mitchell kept assuring Palestinian leaders that the Arab ‘peace initiative' would become part and parcel of Washington's drive for a two-state solution. The Arab plan actually is a prescription for the end of Israel as a Jewish state because it's predicated on a ‘right of return' for millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to flood back into Israel."
- Additional steps taken by Obama suggesting a lack of support for Israel include his decision to join the UN Human Rights Committee and his administration's involvement in the planning stages of Durban II (including toying with the idea of actually attending).
Victor Hanson Davis summarizes the status of relations between the United States and Israel as follows:
"I am very worried. Israel I think is alone now. The failed Freeman appointment, the historically puerile al-Arabiya interview (cf. e.g., Obama's praise of the good ole days, some thirty years ago, when Sadat was murdered, Khomeini took over, Saddam was flexing his muscles, Americans were routinely murdered, etc.) the Samantha Power appointment, the 'outreach' to Syria, the video for Iran, the Gaza/Hamas rebuilding, the tough behind-the-scenes lectures to Israel-all this bodes ill.
Does Team Obama really believe that a murderous autocratic cabal like Hamas is merely different from a democratic constitutional republic like Israel? At best we have naiveté at the helm (Obama thinks he can mesmerize misunderstood killers), at worst, a genuine feeling that Israel is an aggressive, Western imperialist power exploiting indigenous people of color who simply wish to be free--in other words, the Rev. Wright-Bill Ayers-Rashid Khalidi view of the Middle East."
Lauri B. Regan is an attorney at a global law firm in New York.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/how_to_lose_a_friend_in_100_da.html at April 29, 2009 - 02:03:36 AM EDT
American Thinker
Israeli strategy is all too often constructed, if not dictated, by American foreign policy and in particular, the American President. How then could American Jews risk the survival of the State of Israel on a man who they knew befriended and listened to an anti-Semitic pastor for 20 years, surrounded himself with anti-Semitic friends and advisors, promised to unconditionally reach out to Israel's (and America's) enemies, and flip flopped on the status of Jerusalem? I have been clear that the status of Israel was too essential to the survival of the Jewish people to risk its continued existence with a vote for a man whose only redeeming quality was his ability to read eloquently (and sometimes too quickly) from a teleprompter. Shockingly, 78% of American Jews apparently disagreed and voted for Obama. What I have since concluded is that many of those liberal Jews were less concerned with the State of Israel than with their liberal values.
An analysis of the policies, statements and decisions made in these first 100 days of the Obama administration with regard to Middle East policy follows.
- While snubbing Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the upcoming AIPAC summit, Obama's first official phone call as POTUS was to Palestinian leader, President Mahmoud Abbas.
- After just seven days on the job, Obama signed an order allocating $20.3 million for Palestinian migration and refugee assistance.
- Shortly thereafter Obama decided to earmark $900 million to rebuild Gaza and strengthen the Palestinian Authority. Many liberals naively argued that Hamas would never see those funds and they would never be used to rebuild the arms shipment tunnels the Israelis attempted to destroy. It has since been reported that the Obama administration has asked Congress to amend U.S. law to enable the Palestinians to receive federal aid even if it forms a unity coalition with Hamas.
- Obama's first television interview was granted to the Saudi-funded al Arabiya TV.
For all of the American Jews that were thrilled when Hillary Clinton was selected as Secretary of State, apparently believing that she was a friend of Israel (completely forgetting her embrace of Arafat's wife, literally), her early comments chastising Israel for building settlements and exercising its right to demolish dozens of homes in East Jerusalem that were built illegally should have been illuminating. She stated:
"Clearly this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the 'road map'...It is an issue that we intend to raise with the government of Israel..."
Where were Clinton's public denunciations of Hamas rockets raining down on Southern Israel? (When I was in Sderot in March, we held the remnants of a missile that had landed just two weeks prior to our visit.) Perhaps Madam Secretary needs to be reminded that the "road map" calls for a complete cessation of violence by the Palestinians and recognition of Israel as a Jewish State, something that Abbas has firmly rejected in the face of a silent Obama administration.
Furthermore, can one imagine the administration publicly admonishing any other sovereign nation for the legal demolition of a few dozen illegally constructed homes? While in Israel I saw the neighborhood in question. The fact that Clinton took time to scold Israel on this "issue" would be laughable if people across the globe were not actually dying and being victimized by real human rights atrocities as to which the Obama administration is silent.
As if one scolding were not enough, Hillary again made her voice heard stating:
"For Israel to get the kind of strong support it is looking for vis-à-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts. They go hand in hand."
It is astonishing that America's "strong support" for its only ally in the Mideast which is threatened by a common enemy ruled by Islamic extremists and a fascist dictator is conditional. And if Ariel Sharon's ceding Gaza in return for the constant bombardment of thousands of rockets is standing on the sidelines, then perhaps I've been reading the wrong playbook because clearly the Obama administration's promise of change includes an entirely new game of reaching out to enemies while disregarding friends. Finally, the "blame Israel" for the conflicts resulting from the jihadist ideology permeating the Mideast is something that we expect from anti-Semites the world over but certainly not the government of the United States of America.
- Recently blowhard Joe advised Netanyahu that it would be "ill-advised" for Israel to defend itself against the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon obliterating Israel and its people.
- American Jews who could not stop kvelling when Obama selected Rahm Emmanuel as his chief of staff should have been outraged when Emmanuel officially threw Israel under the bus declaring:
"In the next four years there is going to be a permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it doesn't matter to us at all who is prime minister...Any treatment of the Iranian nuclear problem will be contingent upon progress in the negotiations and an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank territory."
In response to this comment, National Union chairman Ya'acov Katz wrote an admonishing letter to Emmanuel stating:
"For many Israelis, this report is a cause for worry because it reveals a condescending attitude toward our prime minister and Israeli public opinion. This is an attitude that Israel does not expect from a real friend such as the US..."
- Another hero of the Jewish community, special envoy to the Mideast George Mitchell, further proved the destructive path on which the Obama administration has embarked by stating his intent to include the Arab peace initiative into his Mideast policy. As Leo Rennert wrote in AT:
"According to Mitchell, creation of a Palestinian state, per se, will be the magic wand to bring peace to the region. George W. Bush, the first American president to endorse Palestinian statehood, had a quite different plan...before there could be a Palestine, there had to be guarantees that it really would be ‘untainted by terrorism.' That stipulation is gone from the Obama/Mitchell playbook.
"To make matters even worse for Israel, Mitchell kept assuring Palestinian leaders that the Arab ‘peace initiative' would become part and parcel of Washington's drive for a two-state solution. The Arab plan actually is a prescription for the end of Israel as a Jewish state because it's predicated on a ‘right of return' for millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to flood back into Israel."
- Additional steps taken by Obama suggesting a lack of support for Israel include his decision to join the UN Human Rights Committee and his administration's involvement in the planning stages of Durban II (including toying with the idea of actually attending).
Victor Hanson Davis summarizes the status of relations between the United States and Israel as follows:
"I am very worried. Israel I think is alone now. The failed Freeman appointment, the historically puerile al-Arabiya interview (cf. e.g., Obama's praise of the good ole days, some thirty years ago, when Sadat was murdered, Khomeini took over, Saddam was flexing his muscles, Americans were routinely murdered, etc.) the Samantha Power appointment, the 'outreach' to Syria, the video for Iran, the Gaza/Hamas rebuilding, the tough behind-the-scenes lectures to Israel-all this bodes ill.
Does Team Obama really believe that a murderous autocratic cabal like Hamas is merely different from a democratic constitutional republic like Israel? At best we have naiveté at the helm (Obama thinks he can mesmerize misunderstood killers), at worst, a genuine feeling that Israel is an aggressive, Western imperialist power exploiting indigenous people of color who simply wish to be free--in other words, the Rev. Wright-Bill Ayers-Rashid Khalidi view of the Middle East."
Lauri B. Regan is an attorney at a global law firm in New York.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/how_to_lose_a_friend_in_100_da.html at April 29, 2009 - 02:03:36 AM EDT
Our Wonderful Country
Israelis like to whine, but Independence Day a chance to recognize how well we’re doing
Hanoch Daum
Israel Opinion
YNET News
Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook, who established Israel’s Chief Rabbinate, once asked what was the deal with all those Holy Days and Shabbats. f this world is holy, he wondered, why can’t it be holy all the time? Why do we need to set aside only a few specific days to that end? Why are we like sons of angels only on Rosh Hashana? Why do we pray the whole day only on Yom Kippur?
The rabbi asked these questions, and also offered an answer: Any day should have been a holiday. Any day should have been holy. The potential exists, yet we are unable to recognize it. We’re not built to celebrate every day and be merry every day. The holidays, said the rabbi, are our opportunity to be exposed on a one-time basis to the true holiness and true power of all days of the year. The Shabbat is our opportunity to recognize the potential inherent in all other days of the week.
If I may continue with Rabbi Kook’s logic, Independence Day is also a day where we are allowed to feel what we have been repressing the whole year. A day where we are allowed to recognize what is hidden from view during our daily life. We are allowed to be a little more optimistic, and look at our country in a somewhat different way.
Indeed, this goes against our nature: After all, we are unable to wake up every morning and admit that things are going well. Not us. We prefer to whine.
We prefer to talk about unemployment, and forget that once upon a time we had food rations here; we lament the state of education, but forget that Israel is the world’s number one exporter of scientists and men of letters; we whine about the absence of morals here, but forget that our crime rate is among the lowest in the world.
We prefer to whine about the state of our culture, but ignore the international achievements of Israeli film and Israeli literature. We talk about the Iranian threat, without mentioning that for the time being, we are in fact the only nuclear power in the region.
Independence Day is an opportunity; an opportunity to admit that something beautiful is being done here. That something touching has been built here. That we only become better with the passage of time. We have an ultra-Orthodox deputy health minister, a religious science minister, and a secular Knesset speaker, who holds his first tour in an Arab town.
We have camaraderie here and people help each other during times of crisis, we have a special culture and diversity of opinion, and we have quite a bit of love and spirituality around here, hiding behind the veneer of our hurried routine.
We have plenty of time during the year to look into what is still missing. Independence Day is the opportunity to admit that we already achieved most of it. Chag Sameach.
Hanoch Daum
Israel Opinion
YNET News
Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook, who established Israel’s Chief Rabbinate, once asked what was the deal with all those Holy Days and Shabbats. f this world is holy, he wondered, why can’t it be holy all the time? Why do we need to set aside only a few specific days to that end? Why are we like sons of angels only on Rosh Hashana? Why do we pray the whole day only on Yom Kippur?
The rabbi asked these questions, and also offered an answer: Any day should have been a holiday. Any day should have been holy. The potential exists, yet we are unable to recognize it. We’re not built to celebrate every day and be merry every day. The holidays, said the rabbi, are our opportunity to be exposed on a one-time basis to the true holiness and true power of all days of the year. The Shabbat is our opportunity to recognize the potential inherent in all other days of the week.
If I may continue with Rabbi Kook’s logic, Independence Day is also a day where we are allowed to feel what we have been repressing the whole year. A day where we are allowed to recognize what is hidden from view during our daily life. We are allowed to be a little more optimistic, and look at our country in a somewhat different way.
Indeed, this goes against our nature: After all, we are unable to wake up every morning and admit that things are going well. Not us. We prefer to whine.
We prefer to talk about unemployment, and forget that once upon a time we had food rations here; we lament the state of education, but forget that Israel is the world’s number one exporter of scientists and men of letters; we whine about the absence of morals here, but forget that our crime rate is among the lowest in the world.
We prefer to whine about the state of our culture, but ignore the international achievements of Israeli film and Israeli literature. We talk about the Iranian threat, without mentioning that for the time being, we are in fact the only nuclear power in the region.
Independence Day is an opportunity; an opportunity to admit that something beautiful is being done here. That something touching has been built here. That we only become better with the passage of time. We have an ultra-Orthodox deputy health minister, a religious science minister, and a secular Knesset speaker, who holds his first tour in an Arab town.
We have camaraderie here and people help each other during times of crisis, we have a special culture and diversity of opinion, and we have quite a bit of love and spirituality around here, hiding behind the veneer of our hurried routine.
We have plenty of time during the year to look into what is still missing. Independence Day is the opportunity to admit that we already achieved most of it. Chag Sameach.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Proposed Concessions to Hamas Show Obama Administration Is Clueless
RubinReports
In what might eventually become its first step directly damaging U.S.-Israel relations and injuring Israel’s interests, the Obama administration has reportedly proposed allowing American aid to go to a Palestinian Authority (PA) even if Hamas, which is designated in U.S. law as a terrorist group, would be participating in it. Several notes of caution: this is a trial balloon; it isn’t clear that the administration is going to make a serious effort to pass this; it is probable that Congress won’t do it; and even if the change would be made it isn’t going to have any direct practical implication.
And what does all this start to tell us? It is more an incredibly stupid idea than it is a dangerous one on its own merit, but in the final analysis it is both stupid and dangerous.
Why does it reflect so badly on the administration’s judgment and understanding of the Middle East? Not for the reasons you probably think.
First, it is unnecessary. There is no immediate need or strategic gain to be made by such a step (quite the contrary, as we shall see in a moment). Hamas isn’t in coalition with the PA nor does it have any prospect of joining. The negotiations are going badly and anyone with half a brain should be able to see that Fatah, which runs the PA, won’t accept Hamas’s domination and vice-versa.
What do you call someone in Washington DC who sacrifices political capital for nothing? Answer: extremely stupid.
As the great French foreign minister Charles de Talleyrand once put it, in international affairs blunders are worse than crimes. Talleyrand was not a very nice man. He never apologized for anything. He was a very successful diplomatist.
Second, though, the proposal is dangerous. It signals Hamas that the United States is ready to give it a concession without that group changing anything. Go on, the administration appears to be saying, being terrorist, genocidal in intention, antisemitic, and incredibly repressive of your own people. Why should that stop us giving you money and recognition in future?
And it signals Fatah and the PA that the United States wants them to make a coalition with Hamas. That’s the way people think in the Middle East and U.S. officials are supposed to understand this. You can bet your real assets that at this very moment in Ramallah, Hebron, and Nablus people are saying: Obama is now backing Hamas!
As such, it gives aid and comfort to those in Fatah who think that the two Palestinian groups should join to fight Israel. And it gives encouragement to almost all of Fatah which would rather have peace with Hamas than peace with Israel.
Obama says he wants to move the peace process forward. Instead, he has just punctured one of its tires.
Note however that in a few weeks the administration may face a real situation like this. If the Lebanese election results in Hizballah participating or even dominating the government, the United States is signaling that it will continue aid there also, thus undermining the moderates in the voting.
What would a smart policy do? Insist that the United States will never ever give money to any PA government in which Hamas participated unless Hamas changed its goals and methods, that is recognize Israel's existence and cease terrorism. In other words, the same policy the United States has had up to now.
Why? Because that presses Hamas to change (even if it won't change, that should be Hamas's problem and loss), encourges the PA to stand tough, shows the PA and others that the United States rewards moderation and punished radicalism and terrorism. This encourages others to be more moderate and not to give in to extremists, while encouraging other extremists to think about changing their ways.
Of course, if a coalition was formed in spite of your efforts you can rethink your policy. You shouldn't give in but at least you have the option of taking new facts into account.
That's how policymakers are supposed to work.
Memo to administration policymakers: Leverage is an important principle in international affairs. You have something. Others want it. Make them pay for it. Don’t give it away free.
Memo 2 to administration policymakers: Every time you make a concession to your enemies, it hurts your friends who have the same enemies. They start thinking you are supporting their enemies. They become demoralized. They seek to cut their own deals.
Whether or not the administration does push forward with a change that might be called the Let’s Give Money to Hamas Terrorists Act of 2009, it is one more piece of evidence as to its very serious misunderstanding of how diplomacy works and the current state of the Middle East.
Thanks Barry Rubin
In what might eventually become its first step directly damaging U.S.-Israel relations and injuring Israel’s interests, the Obama administration has reportedly proposed allowing American aid to go to a Palestinian Authority (PA) even if Hamas, which is designated in U.S. law as a terrorist group, would be participating in it. Several notes of caution: this is a trial balloon; it isn’t clear that the administration is going to make a serious effort to pass this; it is probable that Congress won’t do it; and even if the change would be made it isn’t going to have any direct practical implication.
And what does all this start to tell us? It is more an incredibly stupid idea than it is a dangerous one on its own merit, but in the final analysis it is both stupid and dangerous.
Why does it reflect so badly on the administration’s judgment and understanding of the Middle East? Not for the reasons you probably think.
First, it is unnecessary. There is no immediate need or strategic gain to be made by such a step (quite the contrary, as we shall see in a moment). Hamas isn’t in coalition with the PA nor does it have any prospect of joining. The negotiations are going badly and anyone with half a brain should be able to see that Fatah, which runs the PA, won’t accept Hamas’s domination and vice-versa.
What do you call someone in Washington DC who sacrifices political capital for nothing? Answer: extremely stupid.
As the great French foreign minister Charles de Talleyrand once put it, in international affairs blunders are worse than crimes. Talleyrand was not a very nice man. He never apologized for anything. He was a very successful diplomatist.
Second, though, the proposal is dangerous. It signals Hamas that the United States is ready to give it a concession without that group changing anything. Go on, the administration appears to be saying, being terrorist, genocidal in intention, antisemitic, and incredibly repressive of your own people. Why should that stop us giving you money and recognition in future?
And it signals Fatah and the PA that the United States wants them to make a coalition with Hamas. That’s the way people think in the Middle East and U.S. officials are supposed to understand this. You can bet your real assets that at this very moment in Ramallah, Hebron, and Nablus people are saying: Obama is now backing Hamas!
As such, it gives aid and comfort to those in Fatah who think that the two Palestinian groups should join to fight Israel. And it gives encouragement to almost all of Fatah which would rather have peace with Hamas than peace with Israel.
Obama says he wants to move the peace process forward. Instead, he has just punctured one of its tires.
Note however that in a few weeks the administration may face a real situation like this. If the Lebanese election results in Hizballah participating or even dominating the government, the United States is signaling that it will continue aid there also, thus undermining the moderates in the voting.
What would a smart policy do? Insist that the United States will never ever give money to any PA government in which Hamas participated unless Hamas changed its goals and methods, that is recognize Israel's existence and cease terrorism. In other words, the same policy the United States has had up to now.
Why? Because that presses Hamas to change (even if it won't change, that should be Hamas's problem and loss), encourges the PA to stand tough, shows the PA and others that the United States rewards moderation and punished radicalism and terrorism. This encourages others to be more moderate and not to give in to extremists, while encouraging other extremists to think about changing their ways.
Of course, if a coalition was formed in spite of your efforts you can rethink your policy. You shouldn't give in but at least you have the option of taking new facts into account.
That's how policymakers are supposed to work.
Memo to administration policymakers: Leverage is an important principle in international affairs. You have something. Others want it. Make them pay for it. Don’t give it away free.
Memo 2 to administration policymakers: Every time you make a concession to your enemies, it hurts your friends who have the same enemies. They start thinking you are supporting their enemies. They become demoralized. They seek to cut their own deals.
Whether or not the administration does push forward with a change that might be called the Let’s Give Money to Hamas Terrorists Act of 2009, it is one more piece of evidence as to its very serious misunderstanding of how diplomacy works and the current state of the Middle East.
Thanks Barry Rubin
A Brief Reminder About Purpose
Daniel Gordis
There's a certain look to a widow who's in her mid-twenties, whose husband was killed in Gaza in January. Eyes swollen with tears, yet with steely determination at the same time. A certain vulnerability on her still very young face, and a face that seems too old for her age, all at the same time. An image of pain and of unspeakable sadness, but not asking for pity. Was it just me, or was it clear that even in the midst of her unbearable burden, she knew full well that she - like the young husband who was taken from her far too early - is part of something much larger than she is? Is that why, looking at her, I had a sense of - more than anything else - strength? I would have liked many more people to see her. President Obama, for example, as he prepares for another stab at Middle East peace-making. Hillary Clinton, who's now telling us to make peace lest we lose American support in the looming confrontation with Iran. All those Jews out there, beating their breasts, despondent that the Jewish state is so "un-Jewish" in its seeming unwillingness to make peace.
We hear all those people - of course we do. And as we do, we can't help but wonder if the world has begun to tire of us, to regret the decision that it made on November 29, 1947. (We know without doubt, for example, that were the UN to vote today, Israel would not be created.) Calls for Israel to negotiate with Hamas despite the latter's commitment to Israel's destruction, the poisonous environment of Durban II and the Obama administration's willingness to engage with Iran even as it continues to enrich uranium, all contribute to this sense.
So to all those who are wringing their hands about Israeli intransigence and inflexibility, on this eve of Israeli Independence Day, a brief word about nations, and states, and purpose. For without understanding purpose, there's no understanding Israel.
Israelis elected Ehud Barak in 1999 because he promised peace with the Palestinians. When Barak put the majority of the West Bank and even parts of Jerusalem on the table, most Israelis went along. The deal fell apart because Palestinians unleashed the Second Intifada. The majority of Israelis supported Ariel Sharon's decision to disengage from Gaza and to uproot all the Jewish communities there. They even elected Ehud Olmert in 2006, after he ran on a platform of further withdrawal from the West Bank. How did a country that has continually favored painful concessions for peace end up with Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman as Prime Minister and Foreign Minister respectively? It is that which Obama, Clinton and all the hand wringers must understand if they have any hope of being heard here.
To appreciate today's Israeli sentiment, all those people would do well to keep in mind two iconic photographs on which virtually every Israeli is raised. These images have come to represent two radically different eras - Jewish powerlessness under the Nazis, and Jews at the height of their power, when they captured the Old City of Jerusalem from the Jordanians.
The former period is represented in the minds of many Israelis by a black and white photograph of a Jewish boy, probably no older than nine or ten, dressed in his finest coat and hat, his black dress socks pulled up almost to his knees. He is the model of innocence, of European-Jewish financial and social success, and yet, he is pitiful - the very picture of vulnerability. His parents are not at his side, and no onlookers have come to comfort him. His hands raised high in surrender as a Nazi points a gun in his direction, the boy's fate depends entirely on the whim and will of his enemies. He might as well already be dead.
A very different image was taken at the Western Wall in the aftermath of the paratroopers' conquering of the Old City during the June 1967 Six Day War. This photo, by David Rubinger, is equally iconic. It, too, portrays Jews and soldiers - three, in fact. But now, the Jews and the soldiers are one and the same. No longer is the Jew the frightened boy looking away from the Nazi's gun somewhere in Europe. He is home, in Jerusalem, responsible for his own destiny.
Nothing in this image celebrates war. The soldiers' weapons are nowhere to be seen. Their helmets have been removed. The figure in the center is young, almost boyish. What captured the Jewish imagination was not the Jew as soldier, but image of a Jew whose existential condition had been entirely altered in the period between those two photos, all because of the creation of the Jewish state. The Jewish state, Zionism promised, would radically alter the condition of the Jew in the world. No longer would Jews live and die at the whim of others. No longer would our children's safety be dependent on what our enemies decided.
Today, Israelis are concerned that that has begun to change, that we are sliding inexorably back to the reality represented by the first image. For eight years, Palestinian rockets and mortars turned Israeli childhoods in Sderot and other cities into years of incessant fear. Thousands of Israeli children studied and slept - and some died - at the whim of Palestinian Kassam-launchers. And when Israel finally did respond, the world's outrage was instantaneous.
Now, Israelis wonder if the Americans have quietly resigned themselves to a nuclear Iran. If Israelis become convinced that that is the case, it will be not Netanyahu or Lieberman, but American policy, which will have caused Israeli intransigence. For an Iranian nuclear weapon, even were it never used, would reverse the change in the existential condition of the Jew that Israel made possible. Once Iran has nuclear capacity, every Israeli parent will put their children to bed at night knowing that once again, our survival and that of our children will depend not on what we do, but on what others decide our fate should be. An Iranian nuclear weapon would represent not only a failure of American deterrence, but the failure of the promise of Zionism, to create and sustain a Jewish state that could keep its citizens safe.
An international community committed to significant progress in the Israel-Arab conflict must first convince Israelis that we are not being abandoned, that the world is committed to the purpose for which Israel was created. Very few of us relish sending our sons and daughters off to war, to bear for life the scars of battle, or worse. We, too, would like nothing more than an end to this horrific conflict. Our voting record proves it.
But as we prepare to celebrate independence once again, one fact must remain clear: we will not end the conflict at all costs. That is what the international community must demonstrate it understands. For on this Erev Yom Ha-Atzma'ut, as on all the others, we, at least, know well what is at stake. Given the choice between sending our children off to fight yet again, or of returning to the world of that first photograph in which someone else will decide if we live and for how long, almost all of us will choose the former.
[RESPONSES AND REACTIONS can be posted at http://danielgordis.org/2009/04/28/erev-yom-ha-atzma%e2%80%99ut-%e2%80%93-a-brief-reminder-about-purpose/
There's a certain look to a widow who's in her mid-twenties, whose husband was killed in Gaza in January. Eyes swollen with tears, yet with steely determination at the same time. A certain vulnerability on her still very young face, and a face that seems too old for her age, all at the same time. An image of pain and of unspeakable sadness, but not asking for pity. Was it just me, or was it clear that even in the midst of her unbearable burden, she knew full well that she - like the young husband who was taken from her far too early - is part of something much larger than she is? Is that why, looking at her, I had a sense of - more than anything else - strength? I would have liked many more people to see her. President Obama, for example, as he prepares for another stab at Middle East peace-making. Hillary Clinton, who's now telling us to make peace lest we lose American support in the looming confrontation with Iran. All those Jews out there, beating their breasts, despondent that the Jewish state is so "un-Jewish" in its seeming unwillingness to make peace.
We hear all those people - of course we do. And as we do, we can't help but wonder if the world has begun to tire of us, to regret the decision that it made on November 29, 1947. (We know without doubt, for example, that were the UN to vote today, Israel would not be created.) Calls for Israel to negotiate with Hamas despite the latter's commitment to Israel's destruction, the poisonous environment of Durban II and the Obama administration's willingness to engage with Iran even as it continues to enrich uranium, all contribute to this sense.
So to all those who are wringing their hands about Israeli intransigence and inflexibility, on this eve of Israeli Independence Day, a brief word about nations, and states, and purpose. For without understanding purpose, there's no understanding Israel.
Israelis elected Ehud Barak in 1999 because he promised peace with the Palestinians. When Barak put the majority of the West Bank and even parts of Jerusalem on the table, most Israelis went along. The deal fell apart because Palestinians unleashed the Second Intifada. The majority of Israelis supported Ariel Sharon's decision to disengage from Gaza and to uproot all the Jewish communities there. They even elected Ehud Olmert in 2006, after he ran on a platform of further withdrawal from the West Bank. How did a country that has continually favored painful concessions for peace end up with Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman as Prime Minister and Foreign Minister respectively? It is that which Obama, Clinton and all the hand wringers must understand if they have any hope of being heard here.
To appreciate today's Israeli sentiment, all those people would do well to keep in mind two iconic photographs on which virtually every Israeli is raised. These images have come to represent two radically different eras - Jewish powerlessness under the Nazis, and Jews at the height of their power, when they captured the Old City of Jerusalem from the Jordanians.
The former period is represented in the minds of many Israelis by a black and white photograph of a Jewish boy, probably no older than nine or ten, dressed in his finest coat and hat, his black dress socks pulled up almost to his knees. He is the model of innocence, of European-Jewish financial and social success, and yet, he is pitiful - the very picture of vulnerability. His parents are not at his side, and no onlookers have come to comfort him. His hands raised high in surrender as a Nazi points a gun in his direction, the boy's fate depends entirely on the whim and will of his enemies. He might as well already be dead.
A very different image was taken at the Western Wall in the aftermath of the paratroopers' conquering of the Old City during the June 1967 Six Day War. This photo, by David Rubinger, is equally iconic. It, too, portrays Jews and soldiers - three, in fact. But now, the Jews and the soldiers are one and the same. No longer is the Jew the frightened boy looking away from the Nazi's gun somewhere in Europe. He is home, in Jerusalem, responsible for his own destiny.
Nothing in this image celebrates war. The soldiers' weapons are nowhere to be seen. Their helmets have been removed. The figure in the center is young, almost boyish. What captured the Jewish imagination was not the Jew as soldier, but image of a Jew whose existential condition had been entirely altered in the period between those two photos, all because of the creation of the Jewish state. The Jewish state, Zionism promised, would radically alter the condition of the Jew in the world. No longer would Jews live and die at the whim of others. No longer would our children's safety be dependent on what our enemies decided.
Today, Israelis are concerned that that has begun to change, that we are sliding inexorably back to the reality represented by the first image. For eight years, Palestinian rockets and mortars turned Israeli childhoods in Sderot and other cities into years of incessant fear. Thousands of Israeli children studied and slept - and some died - at the whim of Palestinian Kassam-launchers. And when Israel finally did respond, the world's outrage was instantaneous.
Now, Israelis wonder if the Americans have quietly resigned themselves to a nuclear Iran. If Israelis become convinced that that is the case, it will be not Netanyahu or Lieberman, but American policy, which will have caused Israeli intransigence. For an Iranian nuclear weapon, even were it never used, would reverse the change in the existential condition of the Jew that Israel made possible. Once Iran has nuclear capacity, every Israeli parent will put their children to bed at night knowing that once again, our survival and that of our children will depend not on what we do, but on what others decide our fate should be. An Iranian nuclear weapon would represent not only a failure of American deterrence, but the failure of the promise of Zionism, to create and sustain a Jewish state that could keep its citizens safe.
An international community committed to significant progress in the Israel-Arab conflict must first convince Israelis that we are not being abandoned, that the world is committed to the purpose for which Israel was created. Very few of us relish sending our sons and daughters off to war, to bear for life the scars of battle, or worse. We, too, would like nothing more than an end to this horrific conflict. Our voting record proves it.
But as we prepare to celebrate independence once again, one fact must remain clear: we will not end the conflict at all costs. That is what the international community must demonstrate it understands. For on this Erev Yom Ha-Atzma'ut, as on all the others, we, at least, know well what is at stake. Given the choice between sending our children off to fight yet again, or of returning to the world of that first photograph in which someone else will decide if we live and for how long, almost all of us will choose the former.
[RESPONSES AND REACTIONS can be posted at http://danielgordis.org/2009/04/28/erev-yom-ha-atzma%e2%80%99ut-%e2%80%93-a-brief-reminder-about-purpose/
Exposing The Palestinian's Phony 'Demographics' Threat Against Israel
JOSHUAPUNDIT
You've heard it all before, as the prime rationale for a Palestinian state by the left..if those stubborn Joos don't knuckle under and give the Palestinians everything they want, the Arabs will soon be a majority. And then the only choices the Jews will have left is to be a minority in their own country or to give up democracy in favor of minority rule.
I've discussed what absolute horse manure this is many times, but it might be helpful to share the latest real numbers for those who still need convincing: Israel's population on the eve of its 61st Independence Day numbers 7,411,000, according to data released by the Central Bureau of Statistics Monday afternoon.
Last year, the population was 7,282,000, and when Israel was established, it was just 806,000.
About 75.5 percent, or 5,593,000, of Israel's residents are Jews, 1,498,000 are Arabs (20.2%), while "Others" - immigrants and their offspring who are not registered as Jews by the Interior Ministry - number 320,000 (4.3%).
Let's look at this more closely. Two things the article doesn't mention. One, out of the 806,000 population mentioned in 1948, almost the exact same percentage, around 20%, were Arab, and that ratio has remained constant throught Israel's history. So much for the rapidly expanding Arab population. Second, the term 'Arab' does not mesh in the least with 'Palestinian.'
That Arab population includes not only Arabs with residence permits who are not Israeli citizens, but Druse, Circassians and Bedouins, who proudly serve in the IDF and do not regard the Quraysh Palestinians fondly, to say the least.
Another factor is increased Arab emigration and the Palestinian's constant inflation of the Arab numbers. They've got plenaty of motivation to do so, as Yakov Faitelson points in in his recounting of various bogus population estimates:
Why fudge the numbers? There are two important reasons: First, overstating the Palestinian population is good for Palestinian morale, bad for Israeli morale, and heightens Jewish fears of the so-called "demographic time bomb"; second, there is a significant financial incentive, as the international community provides money to the Palestinian Authority according to the number of its inhabitants. When the Palestinian Authority pads its population numbers, the Palestinian Authority receives more money.
(I'll say! When the Saudis demanded an audit before they would provide aid to the Palestinian Authority, they found over 37,000 'no-show jobs' - non-existant people who were nevertheless drawing paychecks from UNRWA and other idiot Western donors.)
Careful demographic analysis, however, should lead to a conclusion in stark contrast to the demographic time bomb thesis. The natural increase of the Jewish population in Israel—that is, its yearly birth rate less its yearly death rate—stabilized thirty years ago and, since 2002, has even begun to grow. The natural increase of the total Arab population, comprising both Israeli Arabs and the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza, continues to descend toward convergence with the Jewish population, probably in the latter half of this century.
The data, moreover, point to rising levels of Arab emigration, particularly among young people. According to the survey conducted by Bir-Zeit University, 32 percent of all Palestinians and 44 percent of Palestinian youth would emigrate if they could.[48] The official Palestinian newspaper Al-Hayat al-Jadida has reported similar numbers.[49] A public opinion poll conducted by the Near East Consulting Corporation in the Gaza Strip reveals an even higher rate—47 percent of all Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. [50] Translated into numbers of people, as of 2006, more than a million Arabs in the Palestinian territories wish to emigrate. As journalist Amit Cohen noted in 2007, "Close to 14,000 Palestinians, more than 1 percent of the population in the Strip, have left the Gaza Strip since the implementation of the withdrawal program,[51] largely for financial reasons.[52]
In an interview reported in the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat around the same time, Salam Fayyad, head of the Emergency Palestinian Government, commented: "How will we be able to deal with the problem of 40,000 to 50,000 Palestinians who have emigrated and many more that are not emigrating just because they do not have the means? We are losing in this respect."[53]
The misuse of demography has been one of the most prominent, yet unexamined, aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many Israelis have so thoroughly absorbed the repeated claims of a diminishing Jewish majority that they do not consider whether their conventional wisdom is false. Before an accurate demographic picture of Israel and the Palestinian territories trickles down to the consciousness of the residents of the region, it must first be understood by Israeli and Palestinian policymakers, academics, and journalists, who need accurate, factual information to do their jobs. The impact on the conflict of such a development would be substantial.
Moreover, the Jewish birthrate in Judea and Samaria ( AKA the West Bank) which includes a high percentage of religious Jews is almost equal to the Palestinian birth rate in terms of births per woman.If you factor out Gaza, it amounts to a 67% Jewish majority in 98.5% of the land west of the Jordan River. And that's without factoring in the 'fudge' factor from the Palestinian Authority.
Or, as Yasir Arafat once said, "I've killed for my cause..don't you think I would lie for it?"
Three Days and 61 years
Apr. 28, 2009
Sarah Honig , THE JERUSALEM POST
One of the best books anywhere about the lead-up to Israel's independence is perhaps the most unlikely, least attractive and inordinately trivia-laden little volume imaginable. It was composed by a man considered to have been one of old Mapai's particularly lackluster functionary figures - Ze'ev Sherf.
The pinnacle of his career was his brief elevation the post of finance minister in 1968. In actual fact, however, his greater distinction was to have served as Israel's first-ever cabinet secretary, a position that grew out of his appointment in December 1947 to head the committee charged with all practical preparations for Israel's declaration of independence and with the establishment of a working administration ready to take over authority as soon as the British mandatory forces depart.
Sherf in effect was the state's bureaucratic midwife, carrying out the unheroic but indispensable tasks that are later forgotten and taken for granted. As such, Sherf possessed an accumulation of seemingly tedious incidental material, the sort which is really the most telling and vital of all.
In 1959 he collected these esoteric minutiae into a thin hardcover entitled Three Days. It listed in extraordinary detail every move in the three days that preceded independence and its culmination was the actual declaration at the tiny Tel Aviv Museum auditorium in what previously was the home of the city's first mayor, Meir Dizengoff, on 16 Sderot Rothschild.
The venue was no one's top choice.
Jerusalem was besieged, while Tel Aviv's Habima Theater was ruled out precisely because it was bigger and could accommodate more participants. Even a marginally larger affair was reckoned undesirable for fear that publicity about when and where the Jewish state's birth is slated to be announced would invite Egyptian air-strikes. It was, therefore, thought advisable to keep everything hush-hush, make do with fewer honorary guests and cram them all into a minuscule hall (although the secrecy was quickly breached anyhow, in keeping with local proclivities).
The invitation (including a request to keep it confidential) was mimeographed and sent unsigned. The declaration itself was placed for safekeeping in a bank's basement vault, lest it be destroyed by enemy bombardments.
Only one-hour before the ceremony, was its final wording at last approved - after nit-picking objections over every syllable and turn of phrase.
A laborious version authored by Moshe Sharett was roundly rejected and the debates continued until David Ben-Gurion took the text home, trimmed, honed and rewrote everything himself. He accepted Bechor Sheetrit's proposal to commence the declaration by noting that it was in Eretz Yisrael that the Jewish nation was born.
Caught between religious delegates who demanded mention of the Almighty and Marxists who'd hear nothing of the sort, Ben-Gurion's compromise was to affirm "our trust in the Rock of Israel."
Contrary to popular misconceptions, the declaration never features the word "democracy" and only cursorily lists freedoms "in the light of the vision of the prophets of Israel."
Considering the meticulous attention to every nuance, this omission was no accident. Ben-Gurion repeatedly argued that "this declaration is no constitution," and that the terse reference to civil liberties was required by the General Assembly Partition Resolution.
"We inserted the basic elements demanded of us by the UN," he explained to members of the Provisional People's Council (the embryonic parliament).
Ben-Gurion also decreed that the new state's borders would remain unspecified. Again he reiterated that "this is a declaration of independence. The Americans declared independence without stipulating to which territory it would apply."
"Suppose," Ben-Gurion conjectured, "the Arabs launch a war against us. If we then foil their plans to destroy us and, for instance, capture the western Galilee and the road to Jerusalem, these then would become part of the state -assuming our strength suffices. Why should we obligate ourselves not to hold on to what the enemy forces us to fight for?"
Ben-Gurion's far-sightedness was gutsy. Bloody battles already raged and Gush Etzion fell just when the secretary who typed the declaration (the parchment-like scroll was inscribed after the event) rushed down (on her own initiative) to the nearest neighborhood stationary store to buy blue paper with which to wrap the pages, to "dress them up."
The newborn state possessed no resources or military hardware. Its population of 600,000 also comprised the old, the infirm and the very young. The risk was enormous but the spirit and grit no less colossal.
How different Israel is 61 years on. Its population has multiplied more than ten-fold and its military power exceeds anything Ben-Gurion could rationally have dreamed of.
Sherf, whose documentation no one will bother to air out on the state's birthday, recounted that at 4 o'clock on the fateful Friday afternoon 61 years ago "no foreign flags were lowered, our national banners weren't hoisted, celebratory shots weren't fired, the army didn't march, speeches weren't delivered.in barely 32 minutes was declared the liberty of the nation subjugated for 1887 years."
Following Ben-Gurion's proclamation, Hatikva was played by the orchestra in the building's upper story (there wasn't room below) "and as the sounds descended from above, it was as if the heavens had opened up. Everyone stood silent, motionless and listened to the wondrous hymn, emanating from an unseen place."
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710808000&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Jewish and democratic
The notion of a Jewish and democratic State of Israel is not a contradiction
Gadi Taub
Israel Opinion
YNET News
When David Ben-Gurion declared, 61 years ago, that “This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State,” the vast majority of those who viewed themselves as enlightened, progressive, peace-seeking, and committed to human rights wholeheartedly agreed with him. Yet this seemingly taken-for-granted notion is becoming increasingly less so. Increasingly, we can hear within Israel’s elites that “Jewish and democratic” is an inherent contradiction, because if the State is associated with only some of its citizens and not to others, this violates the principle of democratic equality.
The feeling that Zionism is illegitimate is spreading even more quickly abroad. Not only in Europe, but in the United States as well. Not too long ago, a friend of mine who is a professor at Columbia University told me that his Jewish students define their identity as follows: “Jewish, but not Zionist.”
How did we get there within six decades? How did a notion that earlier appeared to be democratic and progressive turned in the eyes of many into the exact opposite? Any answer should take into account at least two dramatic processes in the history of the state, one that came from the right side of the political map and another that came from the left: The first one is the increasing identification of Zionism with the settlement enterprise and the occupation regime, and the second one is the new usage of the language of civil rights in order to revoke fundamental democratic rights.
The first of these two is easily understood: The occupation is not, and cannot be, democratic. Therefore, if Zionism identifies with the settlements, Zionism isn’t democratic. Keeping millions of Arabs devoid of rights is a blatant violation of our Declaration of Independence and of Zionism’s moral basis, the right of “each and every nation” to self-determination. Practically as well, the settlement enterprise threatens to eliminate Zionism and integrate it into a form of bi-nationalism.
Deceptive interpretation
On the Left as well, many have turned their backs on partition. The longer the occupation stayed in place, the more despaired the Left became. The contempt to the settlement enterprise turned into aversion to Israel and to the very Zionist idea. This leftist camp abandoned the Declaration of Independence and limited itself to a narrow and deceptive interpretation of the idea of individual rights.
It started dreaming of the “state of all its citizens” which is not premised on nationality, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which is seen as the home of individuals only rather than peoples, and where all individuals identify with the state equally. Equality would be full and democracy would be perfect. This is the view used by leftist intellectuals, hand in hand with the “Durban II” conference, to promote the notion that a Jewish state is a racist state.
Yet the simple truth is that the radical Left’s view is no more than self-deception: The State of Israel would stop being Jewish only if it ceases to be democratic. As long as it is home to a Jewish majority, this majority will choose the Shabbat as its day of rest, the Jewish holidays as its calendar, and Hebrew as its language.
This is the meaning of democracy: it is a mechanism for realizing the right for self-determination. It entrusts in the hands of citizens the right to shape their lives, and they will do it in line with their culture. The Palestinians will do the same should they choose democracy. And to that end, we need partition and we need two states, because we have two peoples here, not only individuals.
It is therefore appropriate that on Memorial Day and on Independence Day we return to the Declaration of Independence and remember that the right of every people for self-determination is the basis of Zionism. Those who attempt to prevent other people from determining their nationality – in the name of civil rights or the mitzvah of settling the land – are blatant enemies both of Zionism and of democracy.
Gadi Taub
Israel Opinion
YNET News
When David Ben-Gurion declared, 61 years ago, that “This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State,” the vast majority of those who viewed themselves as enlightened, progressive, peace-seeking, and committed to human rights wholeheartedly agreed with him. Yet this seemingly taken-for-granted notion is becoming increasingly less so. Increasingly, we can hear within Israel’s elites that “Jewish and democratic” is an inherent contradiction, because if the State is associated with only some of its citizens and not to others, this violates the principle of democratic equality.
The feeling that Zionism is illegitimate is spreading even more quickly abroad. Not only in Europe, but in the United States as well. Not too long ago, a friend of mine who is a professor at Columbia University told me that his Jewish students define their identity as follows: “Jewish, but not Zionist.”
How did we get there within six decades? How did a notion that earlier appeared to be democratic and progressive turned in the eyes of many into the exact opposite? Any answer should take into account at least two dramatic processes in the history of the state, one that came from the right side of the political map and another that came from the left: The first one is the increasing identification of Zionism with the settlement enterprise and the occupation regime, and the second one is the new usage of the language of civil rights in order to revoke fundamental democratic rights.
The first of these two is easily understood: The occupation is not, and cannot be, democratic. Therefore, if Zionism identifies with the settlements, Zionism isn’t democratic. Keeping millions of Arabs devoid of rights is a blatant violation of our Declaration of Independence and of Zionism’s moral basis, the right of “each and every nation” to self-determination. Practically as well, the settlement enterprise threatens to eliminate Zionism and integrate it into a form of bi-nationalism.
Deceptive interpretation
On the Left as well, many have turned their backs on partition. The longer the occupation stayed in place, the more despaired the Left became. The contempt to the settlement enterprise turned into aversion to Israel and to the very Zionist idea. This leftist camp abandoned the Declaration of Independence and limited itself to a narrow and deceptive interpretation of the idea of individual rights.
It started dreaming of the “state of all its citizens” which is not premised on nationality, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which is seen as the home of individuals only rather than peoples, and where all individuals identify with the state equally. Equality would be full and democracy would be perfect. This is the view used by leftist intellectuals, hand in hand with the “Durban II” conference, to promote the notion that a Jewish state is a racist state.
Yet the simple truth is that the radical Left’s view is no more than self-deception: The State of Israel would stop being Jewish only if it ceases to be democratic. As long as it is home to a Jewish majority, this majority will choose the Shabbat as its day of rest, the Jewish holidays as its calendar, and Hebrew as its language.
This is the meaning of democracy: it is a mechanism for realizing the right for self-determination. It entrusts in the hands of citizens the right to shape their lives, and they will do it in line with their culture. The Palestinians will do the same should they choose democracy. And to that end, we need partition and we need two states, because we have two peoples here, not only individuals.
It is therefore appropriate that on Memorial Day and on Independence Day we return to the Declaration of Independence and remember that the right of every people for self-determination is the basis of Zionism. Those who attempt to prevent other people from determining their nationality – in the name of civil rights or the mitzvah of settling the land – are blatant enemies both of Zionism and of democracy.
What kind of 2 states?
Sara Eliash says that ‘two states for two peoples’ is an empty, deceptive leftist slogan
Israel Opinion
YNET News
We must admit that when it comes to demagoguery, the sophisticated Left is able to produce simple and catchy phrases. The fact that these slogans have nothing to do with the truth does not stop leftists from using them, knowing that most people won’t examine these catch-phrases too deeply. The slogans will get the job done. If they repeat the lie as many times as possible, perhaps people will ultimately be convinced. For example, the slogan “two states for two people - so simple and so catchy. Numbers that create a sense of credibility. Seemingly it doesn’t get any better than this. But let’s look a little deeper: Are the numbers credible?
How many states have been established in the area that used to be called Palestine-Land of Israel? Today there are two states there, Israel and Jordan. And how many peoples live in them? If we insist on distinguishing the Palestinian people from the overall Arab world, there are two peoples living in these two countries; after all, there is no such thing as the Jordanian people, as all learned experts would agree.
Indeed, most leftists I spoke with were unwilling to relate to this argument, claiming that it is no longer relevant, yet when one looks into a conflict and its possible solutions, one needs to take into account a historical range that goes further back than 40 years.
The state of Jordan is ruled by the Hashemite regime (which isn’t exactly democratic); it settled there with the help of the British army. The Brits handed over the east side of the Jordan River, which was part of the mandated Land of Israel, to the Emir Abdullah, who arrived from Saudi Arabia.
Therefore, there are already two states for two peoples at this time; the only thing that possibly still remains to be done is to hold a multinational conference and decide on dividing the area in a more equal and just manner – by boosting the size of the Jewish State at the expense of Jordan.
The Left’s attempt to limit the conflict to the period of time between the Six-Day War and our times, without the obligation to take into consideration the historical and geographical space, brought the disasters of terrorism and Qassam rockets. The Left’s disregard for the fact that every Arab child recites terms such as “right of return” is part of its attempt to reject reality.
Experiment has failed
What does the slogan “two states for two peoples” hide? In fact, we are talking about three states for two peoples, whereby we get roughly three-fourths of one country, as opposed to two and a quarter Arab states; that is, Jordan and a Palestinian state that possess 75% of the land area, and the dwarfed State of Israel, which is also home to an Arab irredenta with a hostile identity.
Another lie inherent in this simplistic slogan is the viability of establishing a Palestinian state. Ever since the Oslo Accords we have been tirelessly preoccupied with this illusion. We crowned the arch-terrorist Arafat, and later Holocaust-denier Abbas. While doing so we also managed to contribute to Hamas’ rise,we sustained more than 1,000 terror casualties, and we also saw thousands of Arabs murdered in internal conflicts. Anyone with eyes in their head understands that this experiment, which claimed the lives of our best people, has failed.
Hence, when you encounter this empty slogan, keep in mind that there were other such slogans in the past: “Peace Now” and “Peace is better than Greater Israel.” So where is this peace that leftists governments failed to bring during their terms in office? Perhaps, for a change, we should adopt an old rightist slogan that was never attempted as a policy: “Jordan is the Palestinian people’s state.”
Sara Eliash is the Yesha Council’s deputy chairwoman
Israel Opinion
YNET News
We must admit that when it comes to demagoguery, the sophisticated Left is able to produce simple and catchy phrases. The fact that these slogans have nothing to do with the truth does not stop leftists from using them, knowing that most people won’t examine these catch-phrases too deeply. The slogans will get the job done. If they repeat the lie as many times as possible, perhaps people will ultimately be convinced. For example, the slogan “two states for two people - so simple and so catchy. Numbers that create a sense of credibility. Seemingly it doesn’t get any better than this. But let’s look a little deeper: Are the numbers credible?
How many states have been established in the area that used to be called Palestine-Land of Israel? Today there are two states there, Israel and Jordan. And how many peoples live in them? If we insist on distinguishing the Palestinian people from the overall Arab world, there are two peoples living in these two countries; after all, there is no such thing as the Jordanian people, as all learned experts would agree.
Indeed, most leftists I spoke with were unwilling to relate to this argument, claiming that it is no longer relevant, yet when one looks into a conflict and its possible solutions, one needs to take into account a historical range that goes further back than 40 years.
The state of Jordan is ruled by the Hashemite regime (which isn’t exactly democratic); it settled there with the help of the British army. The Brits handed over the east side of the Jordan River, which was part of the mandated Land of Israel, to the Emir Abdullah, who arrived from Saudi Arabia.
Therefore, there are already two states for two peoples at this time; the only thing that possibly still remains to be done is to hold a multinational conference and decide on dividing the area in a more equal and just manner – by boosting the size of the Jewish State at the expense of Jordan.
The Left’s attempt to limit the conflict to the period of time between the Six-Day War and our times, without the obligation to take into consideration the historical and geographical space, brought the disasters of terrorism and Qassam rockets. The Left’s disregard for the fact that every Arab child recites terms such as “right of return” is part of its attempt to reject reality.
Experiment has failed
What does the slogan “two states for two peoples” hide? In fact, we are talking about three states for two peoples, whereby we get roughly three-fourths of one country, as opposed to two and a quarter Arab states; that is, Jordan and a Palestinian state that possess 75% of the land area, and the dwarfed State of Israel, which is also home to an Arab irredenta with a hostile identity.
Another lie inherent in this simplistic slogan is the viability of establishing a Palestinian state. Ever since the Oslo Accords we have been tirelessly preoccupied with this illusion. We crowned the arch-terrorist Arafat, and later Holocaust-denier Abbas. While doing so we also managed to contribute to Hamas’ rise,we sustained more than 1,000 terror casualties, and we also saw thousands of Arabs murdered in internal conflicts. Anyone with eyes in their head understands that this experiment, which claimed the lives of our best people, has failed.
Hence, when you encounter this empty slogan, keep in mind that there were other such slogans in the past: “Peace Now” and “Peace is better than Greater Israel.” So where is this peace that leftists governments failed to bring during their terms in office? Perhaps, for a change, we should adopt an old rightist slogan that was never attempted as a policy: “Jordan is the Palestinian people’s state.”
Sara Eliash is the Yesha Council’s deputy chairwoman
Fred Thompson: Obama Loosed 'Dogs of War' on CIA
Jim Meyers
Former Senator, TV star and presidential candidate Fred Thompson tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama is revealing his “naivete, ineptitude and arrogance” as he deals with matters of national security. The Tennessee Republican, who now hosts a radio show on Westwood One along with his wife Jeri, also said the “dogs of war have been loosed” over left-wing attempts to single out Bush-era officials for prosecution relating to the treatment of detainees.
Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella cited the announcement that the Defense Department is going to release many pictures showing alleged abuse by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked Thompson what purpose that might serve.
“None, other than to serve as propaganda tools for our worst enemies,” Thompson said.
See Video: Fred Thompson Slams Obama's National Security Debacle - Click Here Now
“This was set in motion when the president first decided to release” CIA memos on interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects, Thompson told Newsmax.
“There was no purpose in doing that except to make him look good internationally and to the left wing here at home,” he said. “It did a lot of damage.
“In one stroke of a pen he declassified top-secret documents that people would otherwise go to jail for releasing. It gave al-Qaida and the Taliban a blueprint as to the outer limits of our interrogation techniques.
“We have to remember that [the techniques were used] in the aftermath of 9/11. Congress was briefed on these techniques. Some of them asked if they were really going far enough to get what they needed to get, and it was approved at high levels in the administration.
“They carefully crafted them as best they could to not go too far, and to provide safeguards when they were carrying out these admittedly rough techniques on these people who had this vital information.
“So now we’re really talking about a war crimes tribunal, which this country has never done. We’ve never brought to criminal court prior administrations in this country.
“Harry Truman could have been accused of war crimes, I suppose, for dropping the bombs. President Obama authorized the killing of those three [pirates] in the Indian Ocean not too long ago. Prosecuting these people under these circumstances is something you hear about in banana republics and third-world countries, not the United States of America.
“The president’s opened up a terrible Pandora’s Box and there’s going to be a price to pay before this thing is ended.”
Martella asked if the Obama administration was acquiescing to its far-left base when it released the CIA memos on interrogation techniques.
“I think in this case, in all probability, they thought that they could cater to their left wing, appease their demands, by releasing these memos and then it might not go any further,” Thompson said.
“Because surely they were able to see that this was bad for them the way it’s going to be bad for the country.
“This is going to have ramifications that are far-reaching. They thought they could put the genie back in the bottle after they opened it, and of course appeasement never works that way.
“There was a firestorm. The attorney general’s received 250 names in a petition to urge the appointment of a special prosecutor for this. The left-wing blogs went nuts. They started running television ads and so forth.
“And then after promising that there would be no prosecutions, [Obama] acquiesced and now opened the door for that. So I think it’s a case of naivete, ineptitude and unbelievable arrogance and lack of experience.
“We elected someone who didn’t have two minutes’ worth of experience with regard to matters concerning national security. Now he’s cast in this position and he’s making decisions that are going to have far-reaching ramifications not only abroad, and not only with our enemies, but in dividing our country even further here at home in ways I don’t think we’ve ever been divided before.
“We’re going to have members of Congress testifying against each other if they go down this road.”
Martella noted that Rep. Peter King of New York has said that if Democrats do go ahead and attempt to prosecute Bush administration CIA interrogation lawyers, the Republicans should “go to war” with them.
“That just gives you an example of the atmosphere on Capitol Hill today,” Thompson observed.
“People are angry. People are upset. You’ve got people on the left, you’ve got the Democrats talking about truth commissions, talking about investigations and Congressional hearings and urging prosecution. They’re fighting among each other on the Democratic side as to just how they should go and how far they should go.”
Some of these Democrats are “the same people who were briefed on these techniques back in 2002,” Thompson said, “including Nancy Pelosi, who’s not telling the truth now, who’s trying to parse words and trying to get around the fact that she knew what was going on, as others did back when this happened.
“That creates a new level of animosity like I’ve never seen before, and I served in the Senate for eight years. The dogs of war have been loosed in this country and I don’t know what is going to happen before we see the end of it. But none of it’s going to be good.”
Thompson’s radio show is heard on weekdays from noon to 2 p.m.
Former Senator, TV star and presidential candidate Fred Thompson tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama is revealing his “naivete, ineptitude and arrogance” as he deals with matters of national security. The Tennessee Republican, who now hosts a radio show on Westwood One along with his wife Jeri, also said the “dogs of war have been loosed” over left-wing attempts to single out Bush-era officials for prosecution relating to the treatment of detainees.
Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella cited the announcement that the Defense Department is going to release many pictures showing alleged abuse by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked Thompson what purpose that might serve.
“None, other than to serve as propaganda tools for our worst enemies,” Thompson said.
See Video: Fred Thompson Slams Obama's National Security Debacle - Click Here Now
“This was set in motion when the president first decided to release” CIA memos on interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects, Thompson told Newsmax.
“There was no purpose in doing that except to make him look good internationally and to the left wing here at home,” he said. “It did a lot of damage.
“In one stroke of a pen he declassified top-secret documents that people would otherwise go to jail for releasing. It gave al-Qaida and the Taliban a blueprint as to the outer limits of our interrogation techniques.
“We have to remember that [the techniques were used] in the aftermath of 9/11. Congress was briefed on these techniques. Some of them asked if they were really going far enough to get what they needed to get, and it was approved at high levels in the administration.
“They carefully crafted them as best they could to not go too far, and to provide safeguards when they were carrying out these admittedly rough techniques on these people who had this vital information.
“So now we’re really talking about a war crimes tribunal, which this country has never done. We’ve never brought to criminal court prior administrations in this country.
“Harry Truman could have been accused of war crimes, I suppose, for dropping the bombs. President Obama authorized the killing of those three [pirates] in the Indian Ocean not too long ago. Prosecuting these people under these circumstances is something you hear about in banana republics and third-world countries, not the United States of America.
“The president’s opened up a terrible Pandora’s Box and there’s going to be a price to pay before this thing is ended.”
Martella asked if the Obama administration was acquiescing to its far-left base when it released the CIA memos on interrogation techniques.
“I think in this case, in all probability, they thought that they could cater to their left wing, appease their demands, by releasing these memos and then it might not go any further,” Thompson said.
“Because surely they were able to see that this was bad for them the way it’s going to be bad for the country.
“This is going to have ramifications that are far-reaching. They thought they could put the genie back in the bottle after they opened it, and of course appeasement never works that way.
“There was a firestorm. The attorney general’s received 250 names in a petition to urge the appointment of a special prosecutor for this. The left-wing blogs went nuts. They started running television ads and so forth.
“And then after promising that there would be no prosecutions, [Obama] acquiesced and now opened the door for that. So I think it’s a case of naivete, ineptitude and unbelievable arrogance and lack of experience.
“We elected someone who didn’t have two minutes’ worth of experience with regard to matters concerning national security. Now he’s cast in this position and he’s making decisions that are going to have far-reaching ramifications not only abroad, and not only with our enemies, but in dividing our country even further here at home in ways I don’t think we’ve ever been divided before.
“We’re going to have members of Congress testifying against each other if they go down this road.”
Martella noted that Rep. Peter King of New York has said that if Democrats do go ahead and attempt to prosecute Bush administration CIA interrogation lawyers, the Republicans should “go to war” with them.
“That just gives you an example of the atmosphere on Capitol Hill today,” Thompson observed.
“People are angry. People are upset. You’ve got people on the left, you’ve got the Democrats talking about truth commissions, talking about investigations and Congressional hearings and urging prosecution. They’re fighting among each other on the Democratic side as to just how they should go and how far they should go.”
Some of these Democrats are “the same people who were briefed on these techniques back in 2002,” Thompson said, “including Nancy Pelosi, who’s not telling the truth now, who’s trying to parse words and trying to get around the fact that she knew what was going on, as others did back when this happened.
“That creates a new level of animosity like I’ve never seen before, and I served in the Senate for eight years. The dogs of war have been loosed in this country and I don’t know what is going to happen before we see the end of it. But none of it’s going to be good.”
Thompson’s radio show is heard on weekdays from noon to 2 p.m.
Israel worried over US move on PA gov't
Apr. 27, 2009
haviv rettig gur and hilary leila krieger , THE JERUSALEM POST
Senior Israeli officials said Monday they were "concerned" at the prospect that the US may approve funding for a Palestinian Authority government that includes Hamas. The concern arose after it became known that the Obama administration had asked Congress for minor changes in US law that would allow the continued provision of funds to the PA even if Hamas officials became part of a Palestinian unity government.
The Jerusalem Post has learned from a highly placed source that Israeli officials are very troubled by the possibility of US funds going to a government that includes Hamas.
"Israel would be very concerned about any international funding that reaches Hamas," a senior government official said on condition of anonymity.
Israel believes that a Fatah-Hamas unity government would be harmful first and foremost to the PA's current leadership. Officials also believe that Egypt, which is hosting unity talks between the two Palestinian factions, is making a mistake in trying to achieve a unity government. Such a government won't bring the Fatah-controlled PA to Gaza, but rather Hamas rule to the West Bank, officials say.
The Post reported Sunday that some congressional supporters of Israel were dismayed by the move, quoting Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Illinois) as telling US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a House hearing last week that it was akin to agreeing to support a government that "only has a few Nazis in it."
"You're going to lose this battle," Kirk warned the administration in a conversation with the Post Monday. He noted that key Democrats on the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee were also concerned about the changes the administration would like to see.
The Obama administration requested the changes this month as part of an $83.4 billion emergency spending bill that also includes funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would provide $840 million for the PA and for rebuilding Gaza post-Operation Cast Lead, but the administration is trying to work out how to deliver the aid to Gaza in light of federal restrictions on dealing with Hamas.
US officials claimed that the new proposal didn't constitute recognition of Hamas or aiding to the group. Under law, any US aid would require that the PA government recognize Israel, renounce violence and agree to abide by past Israeli-Palestinian agreements.
Even if Hamas doesn't meet those criteria, the Obama administration wants to be able to provide aid to a Palestinian unity government, if one is established, as long as the government as a whole - including its Hamas-backed ministers - does.
Last week, speaking to the Appropriations Committee, Clinton indicated that the US would not necessarily cut funding to the Palestinians even if Hamas joined a unity government and failed to meet the three conditions, noting that the US continued to provide funds to Lebanon, whose government included Hizbullah.
"We are doing that because we think, on balance, it is in the interest of the United States," she said.
Clinton said that the US did not want to "bind our hands" in the event that a Hamas-Fatah unity agreement was reached, as long as "the government that they are part of agrees to our principles."
Capitol Hill sources are predicting a tough fight over the provision. In the end, they say, Congress could likely adopt vague language that would provide the administration more wiggle-room in dealing with the Palestinians, but not go as far as the current proposal.
Nita Lowey (D-New York), who chairs the foreign operations appropriations subcommittee, questioned Clinton about the authority she was seeking. Lowey just oversaw the passage of legislation - the 2009 budget - which stipulates that Hamas as a whole would have to embrace the Quartet principles before aid could go to a government it joined. The new formulation, which is part of the 2009 supplemental budget request, would weaken that requirement.
An aide to Lowey told the Post Monday she would continue to hold conversations with the administration and her colleagues over what formulation might be acceptable to "prevent terrorist organizations from [receiving money] while not binding the administration's hands as they try to forge a peace."
The administration has pointed to the benefits of greater flexibility for engaging with the Palestinians and encouraging a unity government to embrace the Quartet principles.
Analysts also say that because a PA unity government is unlikely to be formed - and even more unlikely to include an endorsement of the Quartet principles - the Obama administration sees such latitude as a means of sending the message that it's open to new possibilities without much risk that such new possibilities will materialize.
At the same time, many Washington pro-Israel groups are concerned that the message prioritizes forming a national unity government over the risks represented in including Hamas in any process, and are looking to Congress to keep the current limitation in place. One Jewish official tracking the issue said that for now, though, many of these organizations were taking a low profile because they didn't want to create waves with the Obama administration so early on over an issue that was still hypothetical.
However, Shoshana Bryen of the hawkish Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs had no reservations about stating that "you would be hard-pressed to find anybody who is concerned about the security of Israel who thinks that funding the Palestinian Authority in a way that almost assures money will end up in the hands of Hamas is a good idea."
She warned that the administration's formulation could allow weapons as well as money to get to the terrorist group.
Some more dovish Jewish groups, however, say that the strict limitation on the funding only came into place in the recent budget and that flexibility for the US is important to pursue peace efforts.
"Palestinian reconciliation is one important step that could make ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict diplomatically more likely - and American Jews and Israelis understand that," the J Street lobby said in a statement Monday. "The president's request attempts to open a small window to such reconciliation. We urge Congress - for Israel and America's sake - to join the president in this effort as well."
Ori Nir of Americans for Peace Now said that "this kind of rational approach toward Palestinian governance and Hamas partaking in it is long overdue."
Another concern raised in Israel is that a perceived US promise to fund a government that includes Hamas would undermine Fatah and legitimize the Islamist terrorist group without requiring that it abandon its goal of destroying Israel and join the peace process.
AP and Jerusalem Post staff contributed to this report.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710798021&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Now here is an Israel story that makes sense
Foreign journalists allege harassment at airport and elsewhere
Apr. 27, 2009
Greer Fay Cashman , THE JERUSALEM POST
Members of the Foreign Press Association in Israel are complaining of harassment and discrimination.
At the FPA's Annual General Meeting in Jerusalem on Monday, several journalists from different countries complained they had been harassed when they entered Israel via Ben-Gurion Airport or Eilat. Some said that they had been taken aside into a separate room for questioning and that the process sometimes took hours. They also cited difficulties in having work visas renewed, and one journalist, in Israel for several years, said she had almost been expelled but was fortunate enough to have the phone number of an interior ministry official who could help her.
Another journalist who has lived in Israel for even longer said that every time he returned to Israel from abroad he was questioned as if he were an enemy alien.
He also contended that the foreign press was treated as hostile.
Regarding discrimination, foreign journalists said that when they had to go to places with tight security, such as the Prime Minister's Office or residence, they always had to stand in line for a long time and their credentials, though issued by the Government Press Office, were double- and triple-checked, whereas Israeli journalists just sailed through without any trouble.
Some journalists were still fuming about having been denied access to Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.
When The Jerusalem Post put these matters to GPO director Daniel Seaman, he said the office was no longer responsible for work permits and that all complaints should be directed to the Interior Ministry.
As for journalists being detained at the airport, Seaman regretted the inconvenience, but said that in today's security climate - not just in Israel, but all over the world - people had to understand that any security precautions were not of a personal nature and carried out on a whim, but were part of a general policy.
Seaman, a US citizen, said that whenever he went back to the US and authorities saw that his passport had been issued in Jerusalem, they would spend a long time questioning him. He said he did not regard the Americans as being hostile when they did this; it was part of a security-related process, and he accepted it as such.
He suggested that foreign journalists take a similar attitude.
Seaman said security reasons for detaining journalists at the airport could not always be elaborated on. It is the duty of airport security to ensure that journalists are not intentionally or unintentionally being used for espionage or sabotage.
Seaman challenged the FPA to prove to him that no journalist anywhere had ever been used for espionage.
With regard to treating foreign correspondents as hostile, Seaman dismissed this as a rash generalization, but said that when foreign journalists made derogatory remarks about Israel, they couldn't expect not to be answered in kind.
"My first duty is to the State of Israel," he said, explaining that he was not prepared to tolerate anyone besmirching the country's reputation.
On the issue of discrimination, Seaman said that all over the world, local press had an advantage over foreign press, and Israel was no exception.
While he understood the frustration of journalists who could not get into Gaza, he pointed out that in other parts of the world, the authorities also clamped down on allowing journalists into war zones, and there was no logic in singling out Israel for criticism when similar restrictions were being applied elsewhere.
Apr. 27, 2009
Greer Fay Cashman , THE JERUSALEM POST
Members of the Foreign Press Association in Israel are complaining of harassment and discrimination.
At the FPA's Annual General Meeting in Jerusalem on Monday, several journalists from different countries complained they had been harassed when they entered Israel via Ben-Gurion Airport or Eilat. Some said that they had been taken aside into a separate room for questioning and that the process sometimes took hours. They also cited difficulties in having work visas renewed, and one journalist, in Israel for several years, said she had almost been expelled but was fortunate enough to have the phone number of an interior ministry official who could help her.
Another journalist who has lived in Israel for even longer said that every time he returned to Israel from abroad he was questioned as if he were an enemy alien.
He also contended that the foreign press was treated as hostile.
Regarding discrimination, foreign journalists said that when they had to go to places with tight security, such as the Prime Minister's Office or residence, they always had to stand in line for a long time and their credentials, though issued by the Government Press Office, were double- and triple-checked, whereas Israeli journalists just sailed through without any trouble.
Some journalists were still fuming about having been denied access to Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.
When The Jerusalem Post put these matters to GPO director Daniel Seaman, he said the office was no longer responsible for work permits and that all complaints should be directed to the Interior Ministry.
As for journalists being detained at the airport, Seaman regretted the inconvenience, but said that in today's security climate - not just in Israel, but all over the world - people had to understand that any security precautions were not of a personal nature and carried out on a whim, but were part of a general policy.
Seaman, a US citizen, said that whenever he went back to the US and authorities saw that his passport had been issued in Jerusalem, they would spend a long time questioning him. He said he did not regard the Americans as being hostile when they did this; it was part of a security-related process, and he accepted it as such.
He suggested that foreign journalists take a similar attitude.
Seaman said security reasons for detaining journalists at the airport could not always be elaborated on. It is the duty of airport security to ensure that journalists are not intentionally or unintentionally being used for espionage or sabotage.
Seaman challenged the FPA to prove to him that no journalist anywhere had ever been used for espionage.
With regard to treating foreign correspondents as hostile, Seaman dismissed this as a rash generalization, but said that when foreign journalists made derogatory remarks about Israel, they couldn't expect not to be answered in kind.
"My first duty is to the State of Israel," he said, explaining that he was not prepared to tolerate anyone besmirching the country's reputation.
On the issue of discrimination, Seaman said that all over the world, local press had an advantage over foreign press, and Israel was no exception.
While he understood the frustration of journalists who could not get into Gaza, he pointed out that in other parts of the world, the authorities also clamped down on allowing journalists into war zones, and there was no logic in singling out Israel for criticism when similar restrictions were being applied elsewhere.
Monday, April 27, 2009
When Hatemongering is Common Currency
Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
Ottawa Citizen, April 24, 2009 (online edition), April 27, 2009 (print edition)
The world reacted with outrage at the speech by Iranian President Ahmadinejad at the Durban Review Conference on Racism in Geneva. European countries stormed out of his talk and released an array of statements condemning his words. But the real problem is not that an Ahmadinejad exists, or that he proudly and vociferously spews hatred against Jews and blames Zionism for the world's evils. The problem is that his views are anything but unique in the Muslim world.
Tragically, it seems that Western leaders are using Ahmadinejad as their radical Islamic whipping boy in order to content themselves that they are doing all they can to fight growing radical Islamic racism, its calls for a world without Israel and genocide of Jews, and its espousal of Holocaust denial.
In reality, the strong media and government reactions to Ahmadinejad's hate promotion serve only to highlight their hypocrisy in ignoring the same ideology when it's expressed by Arab leaders who have succeeded in making the Western world's list of "good guys."
Saudi King Abdullah - whom President George W. Bush kissed and to whom President Barack Obama bowed earlier this month -- has blamed Israel for terror attacks in Saudi Arabia: "We can be certain that Zionism is behind everything ... I don't say 100 percent, but 95 percent." [Saudi 1 Television, May 2, 2004]
Grade 9 children in Saudi Arabia are taught that "the hour [of judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees, until the rocks or the trees say, 'O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him!"
Earlier this year, the head of the Department of Islamic Studies at Saud University pronounced that "Jews are the enemies of Allah." Dr. Walid Al-Rashudi also prayed for the extermination of all Jews: "Kill them one by one and don't leave even one." [Al-Aqsa (Hamas) TV, Jan. 12, 2009.
It is the very existence of the Jews, not their actions or even their Zionism, that fuels the rhetoric of many Islamic political and religious leaders.
"If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. . . . They are enemies not because they occupied Palestine. They would have been enemies even if they did not occupy a thing," said Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Ya'qoub.
". . . You must believe that we will fight, defeat, and annihilate them, until not a single Jew remains on the face of the Earth." [Al-Rahma TV (Egypt), Jan. 17, 2009]
Is this any different from Ahmadinejad's calls for a world without Israel?
And look at Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, depicted by the West as a moderate to whom Israel is supposed to offer statehood. But the TV channel directly controlled by Abbas's office regularly runs educational programs to teach Palestinian adults and children alike that there is no state called Israel, and that all Israel's land is actually "occupied Palestine."
Palestinian children are taught that Israeli cities throughout the entire country - from Haifa in the North, to Jaffa (part of Tel Aviv), to Eilat in the south, are all actually Palestinian cities. Videos feature songs about a "Palestine" that erases Israel and a future when the Israeli cities Jaffa and Haifa will be "liberated."
Hamas, which has convinced many Western leaders and journalists that it spends more time building schools than bombing civilians, broadcast a sermon earlier this month depicting the Jews as enemies of humanity, inherently evil, seeking to rule the world and a dangerous threat to Muslims.
"The time will come, by Allah's will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth." [Hamas (Al-Aqsa) TV, April 3, 2009]
boy actorWhy is Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial so passionately denounced when Palestinian Holocaust denial is so utterly ignored? Hamas TV broadcast a special documentary last year, explaining that the Holocaust was a Zionist scheme to rid the world of elderly and handicapped, and to gain world sympathy. Fatah's PA TV broadcast a children's program that said explicitly that Israel burned Palestinians in ovens. (Click to view)
So why is Abbas presented as a peace partner, Egypt as a peace broker and Abdullah as a friend of the West? Why does the world not react with outrage to calls for "extermination" of Jews from anyone other than Ahmadinejad?
If the West is serious about peace, then all hatred must be condemned. And we must recognize that the real enemies of peace are not only the Ahmadinejads of the world, but the "friends" who have mastered the doublespeak of calling for peace in English while inciting hatred in Arabic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)