Sunday, February 17, 2013

Congress and Knesset Jointly Urge Obama to Release Pollard



by Mati Tuchfeld and Yori Yalon


With U.S. President Barack Obama's trip to Israel mere weeks away, MK Danny Danon and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee initiate a joint petition urging the release of the Israeli spy • Peres set to urge U.S. senators to secure Pollard's release as well.


Jonathan Pollard.
Photo credit: AP

Mati Tuchfeld and Yori Yalon

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=7409

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

EU Won't add Hezbollah to List of Terrorist Groups



by Dan Lavie, Daniel Siryoti and Israel Hayom Staff


European Union sources say that if Hezbollah's involvement in last July's terrorist attack in Bulgaria is proved, EU will consider implementing pinpoint sanctions against it, but will refrain from calling it a terrorist organization.


No proof? The scene of the terrorist attack against Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria, last July.
|
Photo credit: AP

Dan Lavie, Daniel Siryoti and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=7413

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama’s Threat to the Millennial Generation



by Peter Wehner


In his National Journal article, Ron Brownstein, in commenting on President Obama’s State of the Union address, wrote this:
Especially striking was how much of it seemed targeted directly at the massive and diverse millennial generation, born between 1981 and 2002. Obama addressed them repeatedly: by insisting that entitlement spending on the old must face some limits to prevent it from crowding out investment in the young; by framing climate change as a generational challenge; by pledging to provide young people with more training and to confront rising college costs; and by closing with a paean to citizenship that reflected their civic impulses. “They are the leading edge of where the country is headed ideologically as well as demographically,” one senior White House aide said.
Brownstein, a master of political data, points out that Obama won re-election by a comfortable margin despite “historically weak numbers among the older and blue-collar whites who traditionally anchored the conservative end of the Democratic coalition.” The president won because of his strong support from what Brownstein calls “the Democrats’ new national coalition” – including, importantly, the millennials.

I don’t doubt that in 2012 Obama won in part by his appeal to younger votes and that he’ll spend his second term trying to lock them in for future elections. But there is a substantive point that needs to be made regarding Obama’s appeal to millennial voters, and it goes something like this: the Democratic Party, because of it’s dogmatic resistance to serious entitlement reform, poses a tremendous risk to the millennial generation.


Here’s why. The refusal by Democrats to reform entitlement programs in general, and Medicare in particular, means that we will continue to take money from poorer younger people to give it to wealthier older people. Consider: the Pew Research Center reported that over the past quarter-century, households headed by older adults have made dramatic gains in economic well-being relative to those headed by younger adults. In 2009, the average net worth of households headed by adults aged 65 and older was a record 47 times that of households headed by adults under the age of 35. In 1984, the ratio was 10-to-1. What explains this phenomenon? In part it’s because both Social Security and Medicare are open to virtually all American 65 and older, the programs are not means-tested, and their benefits are accruing to a demographic that is growing both in size and in wealth. 

Moreover, if no structural changes to Medicare are made, we will face a debt crisis that will harm the millennial generation above all. They will not have anything like the benefits the older generation has enjoyed. On top of that, our fiscal imbalance is getting worse, not better. The most recent CBO report, for example, predicts the 10-year cumulative deficit is forecast at nearly $7 trillion. This is both generational theft and a factor in our anemic economic growth and job creation, with the younger generation bearing the brunt of it. (The unemployment rate for the millennial generation is over 13 percent, significantly higher than the overall unemployment rate.) As a friend of mine put it, “The millennials are getting by far the worst deal out of Obama and they will suffer the consequences for the rest of their lives; while people over 55 are getting the best deal.”

The challenge the GOP faces, and the opportunity it has, is to explain to younger voters why conservatism is in their best interest; to cut through the Obama cant and demagoguery and obfuscations and explain – in a calm, persuasive, and empirically-grounded manner – why reforming the liberal welfare state is an urgent task, and for the millennial generation more than others.


Peter Wehner

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/02/17/barack-obama-threat-to-the-millennial-generation/#more-818872

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Has the Shoe Dropped on Hagel?



by Jonathan S. Tobin


On Fox News Sunday this morning, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward said that some Democratic senators have called the White House asking if Chuck Hagel will withdraw from the battle to confirm him as secretary of defense. The apparent answer to that question is not yet. But the furor over the Washington Free Beacon’s reporting of a statement Hagel made in 2007 alleging that the Israeli Foreign Ministry was running the U.S. State Department is turning up the heat on the nominee.

On Thursday, Contentions called on some of the major Jewish organizations that have been conspicuous by their absence from the debate about Hagel to finally break their silence on the issue and to demand an explanation about the 2007 speech given at Rutgers University during which Hagel is alleged to have made the crack about the Israelis and the State Department. Last night, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that both the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee have made such statements. The ADL told JTA Hagel needed to explain the remark but the American Jewish Committee went farther in saying that “further Senate deliberation is called for before any final vote is taken.”

These comments are part of the growing furor over Hagel that is not going to be defused by the nominee’s assurance to Senator Lindsay Graham that he “doesn’t recall” making the controversial statements about Israel and the State Department. The allegations about the Rutgers speech are credible not just because of the contemporaneous account of the event but also because of Hagel’s history of saying similar things about the “Jewish lobby” and disavowals of past stands favoring outreach to Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. As Hagel “twists in the wind” — a Watergate allusion made today by Woodward —pressure is growing on pro-Israel Democrats to abandon him.


With each passing day during the Congressional recess over the next week, the Hagel deathwatch will become a bigger and bigger story. Though Democrats closed ranks behind the president’s choice in a partisan votes on Hagel last week the failure to block a delay of the decision on him via a filibuster on Thursday will give some of them the time to change their minds. Some of the pro-Israel senators like Chuck Schumer who have been using the silence of mainstream Jewish groups about his nomination as cover for their decision to go along with what they knew was a questionable choice are now on the spot. As John wrote in the New York Post on Friday, it’s time for Schumer to live up to his boast that he was the “guardian” of Israel in the Senate. In light of the latest revelations about the nominee’s record, that pose is meaningless if he doesn’t jump off the Hagel bandwagon.

It is true that many of the Republicans who voted to oppose cloture of Hagel on Thursday were doing so in order to try to force the White House to give up more information about what the president knew about the Benghazi terror attack. But the extra time gives members on both sides of the aisle to reconsider the Hagel fiasco.

The White House campaign to silence concerns about his prejudicial statements about Israel and its supporters that had seemingly quashed opposition to the nomination is no longer working. The nominee’s incompetent performance during his confirmation hearing only served to reinforce the qualms that many senators had about both his qualifications and his troubling record of out-of-the-mainstream stands on Israel and Iran. The administration can grumble all it likes about how unfair the scrutiny on the nominee has been but the fact is Hagel’s chances of leading the Pentagon are being sunk by the nominee, not his critics.

In the coming days, the calls for Hagel to withdraw will grow. So, too, will the pressure on pro-Israel Democrats to stop acting as the nominee’s guardian rather than the cause they have pledged to protect.
 
 
Jonathan S. Tobin

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/02/17/has-the-shoe-dropped-on-hagel/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Rubio’s Watergate — on The Glazov Gang »



by Frontpagemag.com




“Dallas” star Morgan Brittany joins PolitiChick warrior Ann-Marie Murrell and Hollywood actor Dwight Schultz to discuss the Left’s demonization of Rubio’s water-moment. The Gang also discusses Dr. Ben Carson’s National Prayer Breakfast speech, the lies in the State of the Union, the Unholy Alliance’s hatred of Valentine’s Day, John Brennan’s alleged Muslim conversion moment, and so much more. To view both parts of this Blockbuster two-part Glazov Gang episode, see below:


Part I:


Part II:




Frontpagemag.com

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/rubios-watergate-on-the-glazov-gang/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Russia Humiliates Kerry, Ignores His Calls for a Week



by Daniel Greenfield



“Call! Call! Damn you, just pick up the phone and call!”
Obama’s soft power has really done wonders for the diplomatic standing of the United States. Maybe Kerry should practice his diplomacy on someone easier. Like the Viet Cong.
Secretary of State John Kerry’s Tuesday call to his Russian counterpart has gone unanswered for nearly a week after North Korea tested a nuclear device.
It is not the first time Moscow has not returned calls from the State Department: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had difficulty getting through to her counterpart when she was in the post.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Thursday that “the Foreign Minister has not yet chosen to return the call” to Kerry, but that Kerry was “relaxed about this” and not concerned.
At least Kerry is relaxed about the complete implosion of American influence on the international level. He is totally not waiting by the phone asking Victoria, “Why won’t he call me? Why? I promised to be extra flexible.”
“There’s been nothing frantic about it. He reached out to Foreign Minister Lavrov yesterday, made it clear again today that he’s ready to talk whenever Foreign Minister Lavrov can find the time,” Nuland said.
On Friday, she said the two still had not talked, and “If they (Russian diplomatic officials) are too busy or otherwise engaged, the offer stands, and we’ll continue to do other diplomacy.”
Sure. Kerry can talk to a lot of countries. Like Ghana. Or Uruguay. He doesn’t need Russia. He never even liked Russia. Even if Russia calls him now, he won’t talk to Russia.


Daniel Greenfield

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/russia-humiliates-kerry-ignores-his-calls-for-a-week/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Hagel Derailed —– For Now



by Arnold Ahlert


 

FrontPage Editor’s note: The graphic on the left is created by our IllustWriter Bosch Fawsin. Visit his site here.

Defying a furious White House and Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans successfully filibustered Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Secretary of Defense. The tally was 58-40, with one “present” vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) switched his vote from “yes” to “no,” a procedural move that allows him to revisit Hagel’s nomination after the Senate recess. The move was historic, in that a Cabinet Secretary has never been successfully filibustered before. Republicans claimed they will allow an up-or-down vote on Hagel only after they get more information about the debacle in Benghazi. For the moment, Obama’s dangerous foreign policy agenda, personified by the Hagel nomination, has been slowed. But it will not be for long.

Republicans also want more information from Hagel himself. They blame Democrats for attempting to rush the vote, and the White House for failing to provide more information regarding compensation Hagel received for speeches he has made. Earlier this week, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) argued that such records were necessary because Hagel may have given speeches, or received compensation, from “radical or extreme groups.” This allegation enraged Hagel supporters, who characterized it as “McCarthyite,” but Cruz didn’t back down. “We saw with this nomination something truly extraordinary, which is the government of Iran formally and publicly praising the nomination of a Defense Secretary,” said Cruz on Tuesday. “I would suggest to you that to my knowledge that is unprecedented, to see a foreign nation like Iran publicly celebrating a nomination.”
As usual, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was far more conciliatory. “I think it’s appropriate to wait until we come back,” he said, referring to the fact that the Senate will be on break until February 25. “I think there’s plenty of time to have any further questions answered and I intend to vote for cloture then…He’d certainly get mine and a number of others.”

Before the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid employed his familiar over-the-top rhetoric, claiming the nation would be without a Secretary of Defense should Hagel’s nomination be delayed. ”Republicans have been telling our troops, you can have a leader later,” Reid huffed, even as current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made it clear he would stay on until Hagel is confirmed. Reid further noted that Hagel has ”answered exhaustive questions about his record.”

Not quite. On Tuesday, it was learned that Hagel did not include to Senate investigators
 two speeches he made regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. His supporters in the Senate and the administration claimed those speeches were “informal,” and thus it was not required that he turn them over to the Senate Armed Services Committee. In fairness, one of those speeches, given before the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) on June 13, 2008, was hardly the “smoking gun” many on the right was hoping it would be. Yet it contained one disquieting element that dovetails quite nicely with a president who believes that American exceptionalism isn’t particularly exceptional and that Islamic jihad is a jingoistic fantasy. According to Hagel, “there’s not one religion, not one region of the world… that represents the most valued and real human dimensions more than any other…I don’t find any one religion where people love their children more than the other religions, or whether they want peace more than other religions…I’ve never found that difference, whether you’re Jewish, Muslim Buddhist, Christian.”

Perhaps Chuck has missed the copious amount of information that reveals the culture of hate embraced by Palestinians, including a TV character named Farfur, a Mickey Mouse look-alike “martyred” in the show’s last episode, after being beaten to death by a Jew. Maybe he’s never heard about Palestinian children being trained as suicide bombers. The content of the second speech, given at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies on September 22, 2008, remains unavailable.

Hagel should be grateful the Senate Armed Services Committee only required “formal speeches” from 2008 onward. The Washington Free Beacon reveals an eye-witness account of a speech given by Hagel in 2007 at Rutgers University in New Jersey, while he was still a senator with presidential aspirations.  According to Republican political consultant George Ajjan, a Hagel supporter, the Defense Secretary nominee contended that the State Department was controlled by Israel, saying it had “become adjunct to the Israeli Foreign Minister’s office[.]” Ajjan also noted that Hagel “spoke enthusiastically about the talks on Iraqi stability that will be attended by all the stakeholders, including Iran, Syria, and the US sitting around the same table.”

Later yesterday, a prepared text of Hagel’s remarks from that day was released. Astoundingly, Hagel doubled down on his fairly tale view of Iran, noting their supposed cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan:
Iran has cooperated with the United States on Afghanistan to help the Afghans establish a new government after the Taliban was ousted. Iran continues to invest heavily in the reconstruction of western Afghanistan.
On Afghanistan, the United States and Iran found common interests–defeating the Taliban and Islamic radicals, stabilizing Afghanistan, stopping the opium production and the flow of opium coming into Iran. From these common interests emerged common actions working toward a common purpose. It was in the interests of Iran to work with the U.S. in Afghanistan. It was not a matter of helping America or strengthening America’s presence in Central Asia. It was a clear-eyed and self-serving action for Iran.
Furthermore, Hagel advocated “offering to re-open a consulate in Tehran…not formal diplomatic relations…but a Consulate…to help encourage and facilitate people-to-people exchange.” Much like the excerpt from 2008 above, such notions speak to the utter inaccuracy of Hagel’s predictions, and a bizarrely out-of-touch worldview.

That worldview is further illuminated by Hagel’s relationship with the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank he chairs. A report released Tuesday reveals that several foreign corporations funding the Atlantic Council have either attempted to violate, or have violated, American and European sanctions against Iran. One of those sponsors, Italian oil company Eni, was even “proud” of its cooperation with the fanatical regime. Another, Deutsche Bank, is being investigated by the U.S. for sanction violations. Hagel is a Deutsche Bank board member.
Since 2010, Hagel has also been on the board of the Chevron Corporation. That year the company signed a Joint Operation Agreement with Türkiye Petrolleri Anonim Ortaklığı (TPAO), Turkey’s state oil company, for a Black Sea exploration license. More than ten percent of the Atlantic Council’s sponsors are linked to Turkish energy entities and companies invested in the Turkish energy sector. They buy as much as 90 percent of Iran’s natural gas exports. Turkey is also facilitating Iran’s evasion of sanctions by allowing Tehran to convert oil revenues into gold, which, unlike Turkish currency, can be transported back to Iran. “Turkey is allowing Iran to access means to use the revenues from oil for whatever purposes Iran seeks,” said Emanuele Ottolenghi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “The Turks so far have not been willing to do the things you’d expect them to do to squeeze Iran.”

Although Hagel now claims to support sanctions, provided they are multilateral, both he and the Atlantic Council have been critical of them in the past. And it is yet unclear whether Hagel was aware of the sanction-busting efforts of his corporate sponsors — which is why yesterday’s vote delaying his nomination makes sense. “We really need more information, more disclosure, before we can know if Sen. Hagel did something wrong here,” said a congressional aide who has worked on Iranian sanction issues. “The obvious question for Sen. Hagel would be what did you know, when did you know it, and what did you do about it after you found out.”

That goes double for the other reason Republicans delayed this nomination, namely Benghazi. The administration has provided some information, noting that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contacted Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf on Obama’s behalf the day of the attack, and that Obama spoke to him on the September 12.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has been the most vociferous Republican with regard to demanding answers. “There seems to not be much interest to hold this president accountable for a national security breakdown that led to the first ambassador being killed in the line of duty in over 30 years,” Graham said. “No, the debate on Chuck Hagel is not over. It has not been serious. We don’t have the information we need. And I’m going to fight the idea of jamming somebody through until we get answers about what the president did personally when it came to the Benghazi debacle.”
Graham further contended that Obama only spoke to the Libyan government ”after everybody was dead,” suggesting that it was possible the president might have made a difference if he hadn’t, as current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified, left the entire operation up to him and Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey. Democrats and an utterly corrupt mainstream media have ignored the reality that Barack Obama not only showed no further concern at any point during the eight hours of fighting that cost four American their lives, but attended a fund-raiser in Las Vegas the following day.

Unfortunately, Republicans’ newfound character may be a temporary aberration. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) was one of a number of Republican Senators who suggested that a cloture vote might not even be necessary after the recess. He even believed the White House would provide the requested information. “I think the legitimate information that’s been asked for will come,” Corker said. “Some people may have asked for things that are over the top–I don’t know that, by the way–but I think the legitimate requests will be answered.”

One is left to imagine what constitutes over-the-top with regard to a thoroughly inept nominee for Secretary of Defense, and massive disinformation campaign surrounding the deaths of four Americans in Libya. Harry Reid has scheduled another vote for February 26, during which he and his fellow Democrats expect Hagel to be confirmed.

For the next eleven days, Democrats and their media allies will whine about Republican obstructionism. Republicans need to spend their time reminding Americans of Hagel’s utter lack of qualifications, as well as the mockery that the self-described “most transparent administration in history” has become. The families of four dead Americans, along with countless other Americans who put their lives on the line for this nation, deserve nothing less.


Arnold Ahlert

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/hagel-derailed-for-now/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Benghazi and Private Wars



by Michael Geer


Oh, where is our vaunted self-congratulatory media? 

Download on Kindle the newly released ebook The Benghazi Report by Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb. Brandon Webb is Editor and author, distinguished and decorated Navy SEAL and former Course Manager for the Navy SEAL sniper program. Jack Murphy is an eight year veteran of Army Special Operations, sniper and team leader in the 3rd Ranger Battalion, while also Senior Weapons Sergeant on a Military Free Fall team for the 5th Special Forces Group.

Unlike the usual pundits, article writers and 'journalists' these two have been there, done that. In short, these are the guys. Believe what they tell you.

And they are pissed.

The Benghazi Report chronicles and analyzes what really happened in Benghazi. You know, what the 'mainstream media' used to do? These two picked up the investigatory weight and carried it all the way here so we can learn the facts. Benghazi is possibly the most important story of the Obama years.

I'm going to quote extensively from Blake Miles' published analysis of the book, because there's no point to plowing the same ground twice. Blake, you should know, is Green Beret. Another American man who's been there, done that. Chewed some of the same dirt, sipped some of the same dark waters. You'll find his complete review at SOFREP.
"The contract with February 17 was allowed to lapse prior to the 9/ 11/ 12 attack because the militia no longer wished to be seen protecting Americans in Benghazi."
-This should have been a major indicator. When did the contract lapse? How high on the priority list was correcting this situation?
"All told, the handful of Americans would kill just under a hundred enemy attackers."
-Didn't hear much about these numbers in the news. Important note: the assaulters gave up the rough equivalent of a bunch of pawns to take out a rook, bishop, and two knights. Painful loss, simply put.
"Did Ansar Al-Sharia get inspired after seeing the Egyptians storming the US embassy in Cairo the day before? Did they get offended by an internet video? Did they choose 9/ 11 as the date for the attack because of the obvious symbolism? Maybe. But another contributing factor was JSOC operations in Libya, which kicked the hornets' nest and pissed off the militia."
-Logical deduction. Makes sense to me.
"With the left hand not talking to the right, it was impossible for Stevens to see or predict the JSOC expedition into Libya in late summer of 2012, which ultimately led to the attack on the consulate."
-Main explanation within this report as to the "why" behind the attacks. This seems logical, though the weapon transfers variable would have to play a role to some degree. Whether it played a major role or minor is a very serious question which I doubt we will have answers to in the near future.
"In total, seven Americans with four local militia guards were left to promote diplomacy in one of the most hostile and unstable places on earth."
-"We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi on the night of 9/11,"-State Department official Charlene Lamb. Her testimony made my blood boil.
"It's worth noting that the local guards hired by the State Department were armed only with bats, not with firearms of any sort; it's no surprise they fled."
-Assets also apply not only to personnel, but equipment as well; yet another Dept. of State failure. I suppose it 'doesn't make a difference' in the eyes of some.
"With tacit support from Michael Vickers and James Clapper, Brennan works to exploit a number of loopholes and utilize the Obama administration's creative interpretations of Title 10 and Title 50 powers to launch operations across North Africa and the Middle East, with Admiral McRaven no doubt happy to be along for the ride."
-Here begins the accountability portion of the report. John Brennan receives a healthy amount, and it seems well deserved.
"Because John Brennan is running his own private war, he is not going through the normal chain of command, and operations are not de-conflicted. Ambassador Stevens, for instance, was not read on to the JSOC operations in Libya. He was kept in the dark and ultimately killed in a retaliation that he never could have seen coming. "
-If the CIA is not gathering intelligence on potential attacks via HUMINT or SIGINT, who the hell is? Was there any of that going on? There had to have been a catalyst, even if the bulk of the assault didn't take place until hours after the initial breach. There is always a thread running somewhere. Our intelligence assets were either kept completely in the dark by the coordinators of this assault, or someone dropped the ball.
"In a Senate hearing after the attack, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matthew Olsen, stated that there was no evidence of "significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack." This is a viewpoint shared by Matthew VanDyke, who told Business Insider, "This was not a commando style raid, that's ridiculous..." The problem with this thesis is that further investigation has clearly shown that there was no protest outside the consulate prior to or during the attack."
-Again, if they were gathering any HUMINT or SIGINT of any measurable value, or there should have been SOME sort of a blip on the radar that something was in the works. My estimation: this was pure spin from the administration.
"As the Global War on Terror enters the next phase in North Africa and elsewhere, we can only hold our breath and wonder which of our friends will be killed in the next debacle."
-The next chapter looks to be a disturbing one. I do not look forward to it growing.
"The last thing the White House wanted was journalists digging into what was really going on in Libya, namely, secret weapons transfers from Libya to Syria, a program that remains a peripheral issue in the story of the Benghazi attack. More importantly, they did not want the press investigating the true motivations behind the assault."
This stood out as the most valuable piece of the puzzle I gathered from this report. This picture cleared up the majority of questions I had about this entire debacle.

"His willingness to stand up to his CIA boss and do what was right is an example of true American heroism. Glen Doherty ran toward the sound of gunfire, and his CIA and JSOC comrades could have waited it out in Tripoli. Instead, they practically commandeered a local plane and forced their way into the fight. Their presence and the JSOC element's access to the Predator drone ultimately drove the decision to evacuate the Americans."
-One of the more sobering elements of the report, but definitely a bright light amid a backdrop of blackness.

Standing Questions:
  • Is the CIA or JSOC capable/willing to run operations without knowledge or consent of the Dept. of State?
  • What quantifiable actions has the Department of State done to fix their operations abroad?
  • What was the original intelligence source that referenced the YouTube video? How did that become the assumed reason for the attack in the State Department?
  • Did the absence of executive authority hamper the speed at which assets could have provided support?
Blake Miles' bottom line: The continued lie about the video was intended to be discovered as a blatant lie in order to distract anyone with the power to hold the administration accountable from the darker activities being conducted. The real important question is how far up the chain these 'darker activities' go. Fortunately for the White House, the majority of the media is too prostrated to actually go through the process of 'journalism' and discover questions like these. I have little to no confidence that anyone will be held accountable for what occurred on this dark day.

Benghazi is a story that should never have happened to begin with. Had Hillary Clinton's State Department seen fit to provide proper armed security to whatever the hell that installation was we would not be analyzing after-action reports. Libya, a war torn Islamic nation barely hanging together. Brought down by the same players we're analyzing for the murders in Benghazi, and a place filled with jihadist recruitment and Mrs. Clinton saw fit to defend our installation with locals and Brits armed with bats. This stunning revelation is so far beyond the definition of dereliction it sounds for all the world intentional. The fewer competent eyes around, the smaller the chances someone trained and intelligent would recognize what was going on?

Mrs. Clinton has a lot to answer for. As does John Brennan if he was off the reservation. And others. Which is surely why the story of Benghazi keeps getting stepped on and ignored.

The Benghazi Report is not just an eye opener. It is a straight shot of heart-rattling caffeine mainlined. Do not ignore reading it.


Michael Geer welcomes comments at geer.michael@gmail.com. Geer is an author and publisher: www.finaletrilogy.com   www.aintnotruthlikeit.com

Source:http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/benghazi_and_private_wars.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Two Years On: The Arab Spring Could Use Some Talmud



by Noah Beck


The Talmud is a pillar of Jewish law, containing dialectical opinions from thousands of rabbis debating law, philosophy, history, theology, and myriad other topics.  By displaying argumentation by many minds, a page of Talmud enshrines dissent.


Unfortunately, the Talmudic spirit is almost entirely absent from the Middle East.  Except for Israel, the region has suffered for decades from autocratic regimes that rule by force -- repressing freedom of the press, political rights, and dissent.  The marketplace of ideas is desolate: the 2002 Arab Human Development Report claimed that only about 330 books are annually translated into Arabic.  Estimates for 2010 improved but are still under 3,000 books annually for about 400 million people.  The figures for books written in Arabic were not much better.  According to Kitab -- a joint venture between the Abu Dhabi Authority for Culture and Heritage and the Frankfurt Book Fair -- an estimated 5,910 books were written in Arabic and published across the Arab world in 2008 (more recent statistics could not be found).  Israel, with under eight million people, in 2011 translated about 700 books into Hebrew and produced another 5,600 homegrown books.

The Arab Spring was supposed to usher in an era of greater freedom.  Instead, autocratic and corrupt secular rule has been supplanted with Islamist regimes no more liberal than the ones they replaced.  If Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi's greatest diplomatic achievement during his first seven months in office was to host an Iranian president for the first time since Islamists revolutionized Iran into a brutal theocracy in 1979, Egyptians should be worried.

Just as troubling, dissension is met with ruthless violence.  The most glaring example is Syria, where 60,000 have died in under two years.  In Egypt, soccer riots killed about 80 people in 2012, and the judicial response last month was to kill more people (21 death sentences), which sparked more riots, killing dozens more.  In Tunisia, opposition leader Chokri Belaid was recently assassinated, and violence between police and mourners erupted at his funeral.  A few weeks earlier, the Tunisian army deployed to fight demonstrators demanding to know why, two years after their revolution, their lives had not improved.  Tunisians (like Egyptians) are learning that Islamists know little about today's global economy.  In Libya, the toppling of Moammar Gaddafi's cruel dictatorship has been followed mostly by chaos, with armed Islamists violently challenging the central government.

The region sorely lacks a Talmudic appreciation of debate, questioning, persuasion, negotiation, and other non-violent means of exploring and resolving conflicts.  But the tradition of intellectually challenging authority goes back to Abraham, the first Jew (and, as the father of Ishmael, a patriarch to Muslims as well): Abraham dared to negotiate with God over the number of righteous needed to spare Sodom.

The "Talmudic spirit" helped Israel to develop into the only true democracy in the Middle East: 17 political parties, including a meaningful government opposition; over 20 diverse, independent newspapers; outspoken human rights groups; legal protection of minorities; an independent judiciary; and free and fair elections that have peacefully transferred power over 30 times in 65 years of statehood.  Israeli democracy applies the rule of law even to the most powerful: violence against women is punished, even when perpetrated by the president (Katsav), and corruption is exposed and prosecuted, even if by the prime minister (Olmert).  Of course, Israel is far from perfect, as evidenced by Yitzhak Rabin's assassination and persistent political, social, and economic problems; but it's still a paragon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

Lord Acton's insightful observation (power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely) is as true today as it was in 1887, and therein lies the genius of democracy and divided government with a balance of powers.  Democracy minimizes not just corruption, but also inept governance.  A monopoly on power rarely includes a monopoly on wisdom; au contraire: autocracies breed incompetence, because their policies aren't regularly subjected to rigorous scrutiny.

Institutionalized freedom doesn't only promote good government and human dignity; free thought and debate are also powerful engines for innovation, which brings huge economic rewards, as Israel, a country without oil, has proven.  Known as the "Startup Nation," tiny Israel has ten Nobel prizes and, in 2011, over 60 companies listed on the NASDAQ (more than any country after the USA and China), despite having to devote disproportionate resources to national defense because of the innumerable security threats targeting its citizens since 1948.  Israel's culture of questioning and free thinking has also helped it to develop arguably the best air force in the world, whose most senior pilot can be critiqued by the most junior airman; nobody is above error.


Another Talmudic principle for the Arab Spring is the sanctity of life.  As the Sanhedrin 37a notes, "to save one life is tantamount to saving a whole world."  Section 5:32 of Surat Al-Mā'idah in the Quran echoes the same concept.  But that seems to have been ignored in much of the Middle East, where people can be killed over an offensive cartoon.  In the Arab world (and Europe), there have been countless hateful cartoons demonizing Jews and Israel, yet nobody ever dies as a result.


Indeed, Arab regimes have incessantly scapegoated Israel to distract their subjects from domestic discontent.  For decades, Israel has been so vilified that the idea of emulating anything about it is unthinkable.  But maybe -- as the Arab world introspects, seeking a better future -- the taboo against anything Israeli can be a post-revolution opportunity to question and debate indoctrinated "wisdom."



Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, a geopolitical thriller about the Iranian nuclear threat and current Middle East developments.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/the_arab_spring_could_use_some_talmud.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Israel's Challenging Diplomatic Predicament



by Dore Gold



In light of developments over the last few years, there has been a growing realization in Israel that the chances of reaching a complete final status agreement with the Palestinians are presently extremely small. This is not just an ideological position coming out of certain quarters in Israel, but it is also the professional view of practitioners who have been involved in the political process itself. 

Last June in an interview in Haaretz, Professor Itamar Rabinovich, Israel's former ambassador to Washington and head negotiator with Syria, reached this very conclusion. He added, as part of his proof of this point, that "the bold proposals" by former prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert were not even responded to by the Palestinians. Looking back on Olmert's far-reaching proposals, Mahmoud Abbas himself told The Washington Post on May 29, 2009 that the gaps between the parties were just too wide. 

There were other voices that reinforced this conclusion. At the end of 2009, Hussein Agha, who has advised Palestinian leaders over the last two decades, and Robert Malley, who was a member of President Clinton's National Security Council also wrote in the New York Review of Books: "As currently defined and negotiated, a conflict-ending settlement is practically unachievable; even if signed it will not be implemented and even if implemented it will not be sustained." 

Events since that time have not made diplomatic movement any easier. What is called the "Arab Spring," among other things led to the fall of President Mubarak, Abbas' main regional source of support. Instead a Muslim Brotherhood regime came to power thereby and also strengthening Abbas' Hamas rivals. Given the new regional realities that Israel was facing, even Rabinovich warned in Haaretz: "I would not advise entering into far-reaching territorial concessions in a situation of uncertainty." 

And yet there is new push underway to move forward with new negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians with the hope of concluding an agreement between them. Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague was just in Washington meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry where he called on the Obama administration "to inject the necessary momentum on this issue." In December, he admitted in the House of Commons that he was consulting with the French and the Germans on how to put pressure on the U.S. to launch a new initiative. There was a diplomatic rumor in January that the Europeans wanted Kerry to put down on the table the parameters of a final settlement before Israel and the Palestinians, including a withdrawal to the 1967 lines.

Thus Israel finds itself in a paradoxical situation: just as international pressures are increasing for it to make new concessions in order to restart and advance the political process, there is a growing realization in Israel that the kind of final status agreement that the international community is hoping will be concluded is not about to happen. The Palestinian side knows this as well.

Moreover, there is a more fundamental question for Israel about how it should proceed in an era of total uncertainty about whether half the regimes that are currently in power in the Middle East will even be there in a few years. The Muslim Brotherhood, which even beyond Egypt is the main beneficiary of the Arab Spring, has been connected to plots against the governments of Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Its revolutionary drive in the region is likely to gain new momentum should Islamist forces take control of Syria.

How exactly does the Arab Spring influence Israeli military-strategic considerations? Is Israeli caution warranted here as well? Some try to make the argument that the conventional military threat to Israel is undergoing a transformation allowing Israel to make the very sort of new concessions that the Europeans are demanding. 

With neighboring armies, like that of Syria, involved in domestic upheavals, their conventional forces have been badly degraded. Would that mean that Israel can withdraw from territories that in the past were regarded as vital but whose importance may have changed? Historically, Israel based its security on a small standing army that had to neutralize the numerically superior standing forces of its Arab neighbors. To accomplish this goal, the IDF was structured around its reserve formations that would reach their full strength along Israel's front lines after 48 hours of mobilization. 

When Yigal Allon, Israel's deputy prime minister and former commander of the Palmach, first presented his idea of defensible borders for Israel after the 1967 Six-Day War, it was partly based on the idea of providing Israel's small standing army the topographical conditions it needed to withstand a surprise attack and fight against superior forces, until the reserve formations arrived. But if Israel no longer has to contend with this sort of threat, then could it pull out of the Jordan Valley, which previously every Israeli prime minister from Rabin to Sharon saw as Israel’s forward defense line?

This would be an irresponsible conclusion. First of all, the Arab states are likely to build up their conventional armies again in the future once their internal political situation becomes more stable; already Egypt has no problem seeking 200 additional Abrams tanks from the U.S., which will bolster the strength of its armored forces. Others will follow suit in the years ahead. After all, decisiveness in wars is still a function of the movement of ground armies, and their manoeuvring units, and not the employment of air power alone. America’s two wars against Iraq proved that point conclusively in 1991 and 2003.

Secondly, in the immediate term, there is a new ground threat to Israel from terrorist organizations, many of which have many of the attributes of a fully equipped army. In May 2011, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted that Hezbollah had more rockets and missiles than most states. The lethality of terrorist organizations has also dramatically increased with their acquisition of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, shore-to ship missiles, and advanced explosives that are far more potent than anything they used before. 

The growing capabilities of the international terrorist organizations in the Middle East has reached such a scale that they have even become challenging for the region's regular armies. In Sinai, the Egyptian army fought regularly with al-Qaida in the area of Jabal Hilal, where an Egyptian general was killed in one battle. The Syrian Army has been repeatedly defeated by an al-Qaida affiliate in Syria, known as Jabhat al-Nusra, which has been equipped through Syria's porous borders. In short, the Arab Spring has led to a different but no less challenging security environment for Israel that will affect how we view the question of our future boundaries in the future. 

Third, it would be a dangerous error to dismiss the possibility that terrorist organizations will attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction and use them against their adversaries. Hezbollah is an extension of the Iranian security establishment. Should Tehran be permitted to cross the nuclear threshold, it would be a cardinal error to simply dismiss the possibility that Hezbollah would not eventually get to share in this technology. Hezbollah would not need ballistic missiles; it could put a nuclear device in the same sort of truck it used against the Marine Barracks in Beirut during 1983 or against Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996.

Al-Qaida in Iraq already planned a chemical weapons attack in Amman, Jordan in 2004 that was thwarted. Should Syria’s chemical arsenal fall into the hands of the jihadist groups currently fighting the Assad regime, then unfortunately, non-conventional terror attacks may become more common against those who leave themselves vulnerable. Foreign Secretary Hague, who just warned on Feb. 14, during a speech at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London, about a new jihadist threat to Europe coming out of Syria should be the first one who understands the new position Israel finds itself in.

In the past, Israel was able to secure its borders with deterrence against neighboring states that were considering taking offensive action against it. But deterrence does not apply to these terrorist organizations in the same way, especially those that glorify martyrdom as a religious duty. Israel needs to have a physical barrier against the new threat of terrorist organizations so that it can neutralize their efforts to smuggle advanced weaponry and infiltrate Israel's population centers. The stakes for Israel in not taking into account the impact of the changing terrorist threat on its need to maintain defensible borders could be disastrous.

Israel learned the hard way the significance of its withdrawal from the Philadephi Route between the Gaza Strip and Sinai, which led to a qualitative leap in the weaponry that Hamas could smuggle and eventually deploy. Before its 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip the only rocket that Hamas fired was the short-range Qassam. 

By 2006, Hamas was using longer-range Grad rockets from Iran against Ashkelon for the first time and enlarging the arc of Israeli cities it could target. In 2012, that arc extended even further once Hamas was equipped with Iranian Fajr rockets that it fired at Tel Aviv. Hamas in Gaza also acquired shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles from Iran and later from Libya’s arsenal, after the fall of Gadhafi. In Oct. 2012, Hamas fired its first SA-7 against an Israeli helicopter. 

Israel has three choices given the diplomatic reality that it faces. It can just give up and make the concessions that the Europeans are demanding that the Obama administration impose, but that would put the Israeli population in a precarious position that no responsible government could agree to. It can say that given the uncertainty it faces, now is not the time for any diplomatic initiatives.

But it could also indicate that it is willing to explore new ideas with the Palestinians, as long as its vital security interests are not undercut, but are fully protected instead. Both sides should seek to reach agreements where possible, leaving harder issues for later. Europe could play a positive role if it encouraged the Palestinians to reach more limited arrangements with Israel instead of insisting on the kind of Israeli concessions for final status agreement that did not lead to a peace treaty before and are unlikely to produce a stable peace today. 

The result of all this talk coming out of Europe about getting the U.S. to impose a solution will be completely self-defeating as it hardens the Palestinian readiness to come to the negotiating table — since Israel will be delivered on a silver platter anyway — and makes any real diplomatic progress more difficult than ever. 


Dore Gold

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=3445

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.