Biden’s Treasury Dept Blocks Congressional Request for Hunter Biden Transactions - Daniel Greenfield

 

by Daniel Greenfield

Can you say "conflict of interest"?

 

Can you say “conflict of interest”? Treasury Secretary Yellen sure can.

The Treasury Department has delayed a House Republican request for information on Biden family financial transactions that may have been marked as suspicious, saying that it must first determine whether the disclosure of the records is consistent with “longstanding Executive Branch interests.”

Considering that there’s a Biden at the top of the executive branch, it’s obviously not.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), who chairs the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, requested suspicious activity reports related to the Biden family earlier this month in a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. Suspicious activity reports are generated by financial institutions when flagging suspicious financial moves and are submitted to the federal government.

But the Treasury at least temporarily rebuked Comer’s request, saying it needed to further communicate with the committee to figure out why it wants the information and what it plans on doing with it.

“It is important that a requesting committee specify in writing its purpose in seeking to obtain the requested information and the use it intends to make of it so that the Department can make a determination as to whether the disclosure is appropriate and consistent with longstanding Executive Branch interests, including the protection of ongoing law enforcement investigations,” the department said in the letter to Comer on Wednesday.

Comer was asking for flagged transactions involving Hunter Biden, James Biden, Joe’s shady brother who doesn’t get nearly enough attention, Sara Biden, his wife, and assorted figures tied to business interests, including Devon Archer, and the Hudson West, Rosemont Seneca crew.

It’s obvious to Treasury why he wants it. And Treasury’s claim that it’s holding them back to protect “ongoing law enforcement investigations” is a cynical dodge. Prolonging an investigation is a good way of blocking congressional information requests before burying the whole thing after midnight. That’s the game here.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/bidens-treasury-dept-blocks-congressional-request-for-hunter-biden-transactions/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Don’t Fear Putin’s Demise - Garry Kasparov and Mikhail Khodorkovsky

 

by Garry Kasparov and Mikhail Khodorkovsky

Victory for Ukraine, democracy for Russia.

 

The regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin is living on borrowed time. The tide of history is turning, and everything from Ukraine’s advances on the battlefield to the West’s enduring unity and resolve in the face of Putin’s aggression points to 2023 being a decisive year. If the West holds firm, Putin’s regime will likely collapse in the near future.

Yet some of Ukraine’s key partners continue to resist supplying Kyiv with the weapons it needs to deliver the knockout punch. The administration of U.S. President Joe Biden in particular seems afraid of the chaos that could accompany a decisive Kremlin defeat. It has declined to send the tanks, long-range missile systems, and drones that would allow Ukrainian forces to take the fight to their attackers, reclaim their territory, and end the war. The end of Putin’s tyrannical rule will indeed radically change Russia (and the rest of the world)—but not in the way the White House thinks. Rather than destabilizing Russia and its neighbors, a Ukrainian victory would eliminate a powerful revanchist force and boost the cause of democracy worldwide.

Pro-democracy Russians who reject the totalitarian Putin regime—a group to which the authors belong—are doing what they can to help Ukraine liberate all occupied territories and restore its territorial integrity in accordance with the internationally recognized borders of 1991. We are also planning for the day after Putin. The Russian Action Committee, a coalition of opposition groups in exile that we co-founded in May 2022, aims to ensure that Ukraine is justly compensated for the damage caused by Putin’s aggression, that all war criminals are held accountable, and that Russia is transformed from a rogue dictatorship into a parliamentary federal republic. The looming end of Putin’s reign need not be feared, in other words; it should be welcomed with open arms.

UNFOUNDED FEARS

Putin’s effort to restore Russia’s lost empire is destined to fail. The moment is therefore ripe for a transition to democracy and a devolution of power to the regional levels. But for such a political transformation to take place, Putin must be defeated militarily in Ukraine. A decisive loss on the battlefield would pierce Putin’s aura of invincibility and expose him as the architect of a failing state, making his regime vulnerable to challenge from within.

The West, and above all the United States, is capable of providing the military and financial support to hasten the inevitable and propel Ukraine to a speedy victory. But the Biden administration still hasn’t coalesced around a clear endgame for the war, and some U.S. officials have suggested that Kyiv should consider giving up part of its territory in pursuit of peace—suggestions that are not reassuring. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has made it clear that the Ukrainian people will never accept such a deal. Any territorial concessions made to Putin will inevitably lead to another war down the road.

At the root of Washington’s unwillingness to supply the necessary weapons lies a fear of the potential consequences of decisively defeating Russia in Ukraine. Many in the Biden administration believe that Putin’s downfall could trigger the collapse of Russia, plunging the nuclear-armed state into chaos and potentially strengthening China.

But such fears are overstated. The risk of a Russian collapse is, of course, real. But it is greater with Putin in office—pushing the country in an ever more centralized and militarized direction—than it would be under a democratic, federal regime. The longer the current regime remains in power, the greater the risk of an unpredictable rupture. Putin’s aggression has exposed the inherent instability of his model of government, which is built on the need to confront foreign enemies. The Kremlin Mafia, having turned Russia into a staging ground for its military plans, has already threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. It is not the collapse of Putin’s regime that Washington should fear, therefore, but its continued survival.

For nearly two decades, some Western pundits have claimed that the Russian people will never accept democracy and that Russia is doomed to revanchism. Indeed, Putin’s propaganda has managed to instill in a sizable segment of Russian society the view that Western values are entirely alien to Russia. But economic integration with the West has enabled other countries to overcome a fascist heritage. And deeper integration with Europe, coupled with the conditional easing of Western sanctions, could help Russia do the same.

In the aftermath of Putin’s military defeat, Russia would have to choose: either become a vassal of China or begin reintegrating with Europe (having first justly compensated Ukraine for the damage inflicted during the war and punished those guilty of war crimes). For the majority of Russians, the choice in favor of peace, freedom, and flourishing would be obvious—and made even more so by the rapid reconstruction of Ukraine.

HOPE OVER FEAR

Putin’s military defeat would help catalyze a political transformation in Russia, making it possible for those seeking a brighter future to dismantle the old regime and forge a new political reality. The Russian Action Committee has laid out a blueprint for this transformation, aiming to reestablish the Russian state “on the principles of the rule of law, federalism, parliamentarism, a clear separation of powers and prioritizing human rights and freedoms over abstract ‘state interests.’ ” Our vision is for Russia to become a parliamentary republic and a federal state with only limited centralized powers (those necessary to conduct foreign and defense policy and protect citizens’ rights) and much stronger regional governments.

Getting there will take time. Within two years of the dissolution of Putin’s regime, Russians would elect a constituent assembly to adopt a new constitution and determine a new system of regional bodies. But in the short term, before that assembly could be seated, a transitional state council with legislative powers would be needed to oversee a temporary technocratic government. Its nucleus would be composed of Russians committed to the rule of law, those who have publicly disavowed Putin’s war and his illegitimate regime. Most have been forced into exile, where we have been free to organize and create a virtual civil society in absentia. Such preparations will enable us to act swiftly and work with the Western powers whose cooperation the new Russian government will need to stabilize the economy.

Immediately after assuming power, the state council would conclude a peace agreement with Ukraine, recognizing the country’s 1991 borders and justly compensating it for the damage caused by Putin’s war. The state council would also formally reject the imperial policies of the Putin regime, both within Russia and abroad, including by ceasing all formal and informal support for pro-Russian entities in the countries of the former Soviet Union. And it would end Russia’s long-running confrontation with the West, transitioning instead to a foreign policy based on peace, partnership, and integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions.

On the home front, the state council would begin to demilitarize Russia, reducing the size of the armed forces and by extension the cost of their maintenance. It would also dissolve the organs of Putin’s police state, including the repressive Federal Security Service and Center for Combating Extremism, and repeal all repressive laws adopted during Putin’s rule. All political prisoners would be released and fully rehabilitated, and a broader amnesty program would be adopted to reduce the overall number of prisoners in Russia.

At the federal level, the state council would pursue lustration, conducting open and thorough investigations of former officials to disqualify those responsible for the prior regime’s abuses. In addition, it would liquidate all political parties and public organizations that supported the invasion of Ukraine, so that they cannot interfere with the construction of a new Russia. At the same time, the council would liberalize electoral laws, simplify the process for registering political parties, and scrap Putin-era restrictions on rallies, strikes, and demonstrations.

The state council would also begin the process of decentralizing the country, transferring broad powers to the regions, including in the budgetary sphere. Such reforms would weaken Russia’s all-powerful imperial center: if the federal government does not have total control over state finances, then it won’t have the means to wage military adventures.

Finally, the council would ensure that war criminals and senior officials from Putin’s regime were held accountable. Those responsible for the worst war crimes would be tried in an international tribunal, and Russia itself would try the rest. To do so, it would need to draw a clear line between war criminals and former regime operatives—offering various forms of compromise with the latter to better assure a peaceful transition.

This is a make-or-break moment for Ukraine. Biden can turn the tide in Kyiv’s favor by backing up his declarations of support with the delivery of tanks and long-range weaponry. He can also hasten the demise of Putin’s regime, opening up the possibility of a democratic future for Russia and demonstrating to the world the folly of military aggression. The United States cannot let its fears stand in the way of Ukraine’s hopes.

 

GARRY KASPAROV is Chair of the Human Rights Foundation, Co-Founder of the Russian Action Committee, and a former world chess champion.

MIKHAIL KHODORKOVSKY is Co-Founder of the Russian Action Committee and a former political prisoner in Russia.

This article first appeared in Foreign Affairs.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/dont-fear-putins-demise/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Will Xi Jinping Invade Taiwan? - Mark Lewis

 

by Mark Lewis

The answer is as much an enigma as President Xi himself.

 

Up until recently, I was of the common mind that, yes, Xi will invade Taiwan, and very soon.  With an incredibly incompetent bozo leading America, and the U.S. military playing with itself, it does seem an optimum moment for Xi to act.  And I think he will do so.  But we are talking about China here.  An attack could come at any moment.  Or it may not be for a while.  Flip a coin.

Predicting Xi’s actions is extremely problematic.  China is a very complicated place, made even more complicated by the darkness of the inner workings of the CCP.  Nobody knows what is going on in the upper echelons of Beijing.  Guessing is the best we can do.  The CCP is totally unpredictable, except that it will do what it perceives is best for itself.  EXACTLY “what it perceives is best for itself,” and when, is the enigma.

So, Xi’s invasion of Taiwan, and when, are merely conjectures for Westerners.  But, if he does decide to do it—whenever—he faces some issues.  Will he even do it?  Why or why not?  Explanation:

    1.  Frankly, he doesn’t really need to.  If you ask any person in China, they will tell you, absolutely, “Taiwan is part of China.”  Why go to war over something that you recognize is already yours?  And the rest of the world, practically speaking, does, too.  To the best of my investigation, only 13 countries recognize Taiwan’s independence, powerhouses such as Belize, Haiti, the Marshall Islands, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Tuvalu, and a few others whom most Chinese have never heard of (most Americans, either).  The Chinese people already believe Taiwan is part of their country; why go to war for it?  Caveat:  Not that Xi cares what his people think about anything.

    2.  Wars are costly and politically dangerous.  This, and his need to solidify his dictatorship for life, have probably been the main holdups so far for Xi attacking Taiwan.  He’s got a pretty good deal in the world now, militarily and economically, and wars are risky.  What if he loses?  We all assume a China steamroll, but that isn’t a given.  Taiwan has been strengthening its military forces; they aren’t a soft touch.  Biden says he will support Taiwan financially, Ukraine notwithstanding.  And there are other factors.  Japan has quietly been building up its military in the face of the Chinese Asian threat. Believe me, the Chinese and Japanese absolutely hate each other’s guts; a cursory historical survey will explain why. The Japanese just might decide to pitch in and support Taiwan, and that wouldn’t help Xi, either. China stole some islands from the Philippines; that country might want some revenge.  Vietnam loves to give China the finger.  India and China are constantly squabbling over a few acres in the Himalayas; what would India do?  Would there be worldwide economic sanctions against China?  Xi must think of just more than Taiwan and Joe Biden.  A quick, decisive Chinese victory is not a slam-dunk; the war might be very expensive and lengthy.  Xi has a lot of economic leverage in Asia, but it isn’t absolute any more than Russia’s in Europe.

    3.  Will he be able to control his generals?  Right now, Xi is head of the Chinese military; it’s his major power source.  In a war, he would have to delegate, or cede, some of that power to his generals.  Victorious generals gain prestige and power, and power is what a communist government is all about.  Can Xi control his military?  Deng Xiao Ping, in 1989, mobilized 300,000 troops to crush a few drunk college students at Tiananmen Square.  He could have done it with 10,000, but he didn’t trust about 290,000 of his own personnel.  Power IS the name of the game in China, and as Mao said, “power comes out of the barrel of a gun.”  For Xi, is giving advanced weapons to his military, thus giving them potential power, worth risking a war with Taiwan?

    4.  He does have to save face.  But if he keeps talking about it, he’s going to have to do it.  “Saving face” IS essential to Asians.  Bluff is ok, but only for a season.  Xi will reach a point where, if he isn’t careful, he will have to invade Taiwan or he will lose face with his people, the world, and, especially, the CCP.  If that happens, he’s toast and he knows it.

The invasion of Taiwan is NOT an easy decision for Xi Jinping.  The country is an irritant to him, nothing more really, and he may indeed invade.  But I halfway understand why he hasn’t done so.  And Joe Biden has nothing to do with it.  Xi has a good thing going in the CCP now; risking it on an unnecessary invasion of Taiwan might not be in his best interest, though I am confident he would like to go down in Chinese history as the President who “re-united China.”  If he invades and quickly succeeds, it will indeed solidify his position in the CCP.  If he invades and ends up in a quagmire, he’s got a problem.  And again, world reaction needs to be gauged, too.  It’s a difficult conundrum for him.

Xi won’t do it until he is sure he will win and enhance his prestige.  That will be—when?  

Mark Lewis

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/will-xi-jinping-invade-taiwan/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Americans overwhelmingly back school choice, parental rights in education: poll - Ben Whedon

 

by Ben Whedon

By a 2-1 ratio, parents backed school choice "voucher programs that allow tax dollars to follow children to the schools of their parents' choice."

Americans largely favor empowering parents in their children's education through greater transparency in teaching materials and choice in schools, a survey has found.

The latest Scott Rasmussen National Survey queried registered voters on an array of issues, including school choice, charter schools and education proposals requiring teachers to disclose their lesson plans.

Citing a proposal that would "require public school teachers to put all lesson plans and materials online in advance so that parents can have access to them," the survey asked: "Would you favor or oppose this proposal?"

A plurality of 38% said they "strongly favor" such an effort, while a further 31% said they "somewhat favor" it. By contrast, just 8% "strongly oppose" such a plan and 16% "somewhat oppose" it.

In a follow-up question, the survey asked whether parents should be able to opt their children out of lessons or materials they find objectionable. A clear majority of 52% supported parental discretion while 27% opposed giving parents that leeway. A further 21% were unsure.

Respondents generally asserted that school choice programs "provide better educational opportunities for students," with 51% backing that sentiment compared to 19% opposing it. A near-majority of 48% said that school choice programs made public schools either "much better" (19%) or "somewhat better" (29%).

By a 2-1 ratio, parents backed school choice "voucher programs that allow tax dollars to follow children to the schools of their parents' choice," with 35% "strongly" favoring and an additional 25% "somewhat" favoring the policy. A combined 29%, meanwhile, opposed such a plan to some degree. 

A combined 57% of those polled either "strongly" or "somewhat" favored the creation of more charter schools. Just 24% either "strongly" or "somewhat" opposed such a proposal.

The survey also measured attitudes toward the influence of different religious groups on colleges and universities, with 30% of respondents saying atheists held "too much" sway over higher education. Twenty-five percent of those polled said "Evangelical or Bible Believing Christian people" were too influential, compared with 24% who said the same of Muslims and 13% who held that view of Jewish influence.

The Scott Rasmussen Survey included the following methodology statement:

This CounterpollingTM survey of 1,000 Registered Voters was conducted online by Scott Rasmussen on January 19-20, 2023. Field work for the survey was conducted by RMG Research, Inc. Certain quotas were applied, and the sample was lightly weighted by geography, gender, age, race, education, internet usage, and political party to reasonably reflect the nation’s population of Registered Voters. Other variables were reviewed to ensure that the final sample is representative of that population.

The margin of sampling error for the full sample is +/- 3.1 percentage points.

This survey was paid for by RMG Research, Inc. as part of the service provided for our Gold Circle

 
Ben Whedon

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/education/americans-overwhelmingly-back-school-choice-parental-rights-education

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Florida students threaten to sue DeSantis over cancellation of AP African American studies - Ben Whedon

 

by Ben Whedon

State Commissioner of Education Manny Diaz Jr. last week contended that the course was "filled with Critical Race Theory and other obvious violations of Florida law."

A group of three Florida high schools students are preparing a lawsuit against Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis over his refusal to implement an AP African American studies pilot program.

Earlier this month, the Florida Board of Education determined that the content in the course violated state law, which both bars the teaching of Critical Race Theory and limits the discussion of sexuality with younger students. The state pointed to the inclusion of "black queer studies" and advocacy for specific policy positions such as racial reparations.

State Commissioner of Education Manny Diaz Jr. last week contended that the course was "filled with Critical Race Theory and other obvious violations of Florida law."

Students with Florida schools, however, have raised their own concerns over the program. Civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump announced Wednesday that three students were readying a challenge to the decision.

"Will we let Governor DeSantis or anybody exterminate Black history in the classrooms across America?" he said, according to The Hill. "What this really is about is saying you cannot exterminate us. You cannot exterminate our culture and you can never exterminate the value of our children to this world."

Students Elijah Edwards, Victoria McQueen and Juliette Heckman will serve as the lead plaintiffs in a prospective lawsuit should DeSantis move forward.

Ben Whedon

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/education/floridian-students-threaten-sue-desantis-over-cancellation-ap-african

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Turns Out Trump Was Right on Border Security - Tony Gonzales

 

by Tony Gonzales

An unflinching look at Biden's disaster.

 

Since the beginning of the Biden administration, border communities have been ground zero for the worst immigration crisis in U.S. history. Each day across our entire southern border, thousands of migrants willfully break our laws with no end in sight. Hundreds of thousands more have slipped into our country undetected. Nearly 100 terrorism suspects have been stopped by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in 2022. Cartels are more enriched and emboldened than ever, and Americans have never been more vulnerable to deadly fentanyl and criminal actors flowing into our country.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration has proven on multiple occasions to have little interest in upholding the rule of law and securing our southern border. Throughout their term, they have done nothing but reverse Trump-era policies, empower cartels, and put Americans in danger.

In contrast, under President Trump, constituents in my community felt safe to let their kids play in their backyards. High speed chases, drug busts, and property damages were few and far between. Border Patrol agents were not overworked. This is because President Trump put America first and prioritized border security. He worked hard and implemented a fool-proof, robust border security agenda to make sure the border crisis was solved, and the results spoke for themselves. Bottom line: Trump’s border policies worked.

The first step in returning order to the southern border is border security. Modeled after Trump’s border security plan, we must prioritize using Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to their fullest extent, ending catch and release, and constructing barriers in key locations along the border.

With deportations plummeting nearly 70 percent since 2020 when President Trump left office, it is crystal clear that the Biden administration has done everything to abandon its mission to enforce our immigration laws. One of President Biden’s first actions was to issue a 100-day moratorium on deportations, followed by new ICE guidelines that granted immunity to most of the undocumented population. This is a massive pull factor that has resulted in a record of 2.4 million apprehensions at our southern border.

The Biden administration has also placed a record number of migrants in the Alternatives to Detention program, also known as “catch and release,” which is a way to monitor asylum-seekers without having to incarcerate them. However, out of 104,171 migrants who were issued a notice to report (NTR) to ICE within 60 days, more than 47,000 failed to show up between March and August of 2021. During Trump’s presidency, migrants were returned back to their country of origin while they waited, making for a more efficient and safe system.

With the Biden administration’s dangerous policies, deadly drugs, weapons, and bad actors are flowing across the southern border. To prevent illegal crossings, Trump constructed over 400 miles of border infrastructure in high traffic areas along the southern border. In turn, illegal crossings decreased by 87 percent in areas where the wall was built.

While securing the border, President Trump also worked to disincentivize illegal immigration. President Trump implemented the Remain in Mexico policy to discourage migrants with unrealistic asylum claims from making the trek to our southern border. Since Biden recklessly stripped away this policy, migrants who claim asylum at our southern border, regardless of the strength of their claims, are provided with a loophole to live in the United States while their cases make their way through a bloated immigration court backlog. Not to mention before it was terminated, they discouraged the enforcement. As of February 2022, DHS reported sending back a total of 410 enrollees, as opposed to 300 returned daily in 2019.

Furthermore, the Biden administration cancelled the Prompt Asylum Claim Review (PACR) which allowed asylum cases to be heard almost immediately, sending those who do not qualify for asylum back to their country of origin within days. When the PACR program was in place under Trump, nearly 40 percent of those who were in the program were in CBP custody for less than a week. Since Biden cancelled this program, wait times have extended to an average of 4.3 years.

My constituents elected me to Congress to put politics aside and deliver real solutions, including securing the southern border right in our backyard. We know what policies have curbed the problem, and which policies have exacerbated them. In Congress right now, border security plans are a dime a dozen. The solution isn’t more plans but reimplementing the Trump border security plan that worked. Only when we acknowledge that President Trump’s solutions have been effective, and we work towards their reimplementation, will we be a step closer to a secure America. I will continue to vigorously fight for the policies that will keep Americans safe.

Tony Gonzales

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/turns-out-trump-was-right-on-border-security/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Netanyahu: False threats against judicial overhaul sabotaging economy - Eliav Breuer, Azchy Hennessey, Tovah Lazaroff

 

by Eliav Breuer, Azchy Hennessey, Tovah Lazaroff

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu brushes off warnings of 270 economists that the reforms would damage Israel's economy.

 

PRIME MINISTER Benjamin Netanyahu holds last Sunday’s cabinet meeting at the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem, as Justice Minister Yariv Levin looks on.

(photo credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)

The political opposition is sabotaging Israel with false threats that judicial overhaul will harm the country’s economy, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at a press conference on Wednesday evening. “The opposite is true,” Netanyahu said as he rebuffed charges that a proposed judicial reform would harm the country’s democratic status and thus lower its credit rating, reduce foreign investment and prompt major companies to relocate to other countries.

"The opposite is true," Netanyahu said as he rebuffed charges that the judicial reform would harm the country's democratic status and thus lower its credit rating, reduce foreign investment and prompt major companies to relocate to other countries.

The proposed plan will strengthen the economy and judiciary and upgrade Israel’s “judicial status to that of most of the leading democracies in the world” by restoring it where it was 50 years ago, Netanyahu said.

He compared his judicial overhaul plan with the economic reform plan he put in place close to two decades ago when he was finance minister, in which he removed “excess” regulation to allow for a more free-market approach.

“If there is one major growth engine in the State of Israel, it is the removal of excess regulation and the removal of excess judicialization,” Netanyahu said.

The Bank of Israel building is seen in Jerusalem June 16, 2020. Picture taken June 16, 2020. (credit: REUTERS/RONEN ZVULUN/FILE PHOTO)

He was joined in the press conference by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, Foreign Minister Eli Cohen and Economy Minister Nir Barkat.

They all blamed the opposition for spreading what they claimed were falsehoods and doomsday predictions in order to intentionally harm the economy, instead of acting “responsibly.”

“We reduced government spending, lowered taxes and increased competition and as a result we got one of the strongest economies in the world and strengthened Israel’s economy,” Netanyahu said.Cohen, who attended last week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, said that since entering office earlier this month, he had spoken with scores of world leaders and none of them even hinted at concerns over the judicial overhaul plan.

“The opposite,” he said. “They want to strengthen their economic ties with Israel,” including six countries that want trade agreements with Jerusalem. He pointed to the example of Great Britain, which wants to upgrade its free-trade agreement with the Jewish state.

Even countries that do not have formal diplomatic ties with Israel want to increase their contacts with it, particularly because of the country’s economic prowess, Cohen said.

He specifically mentioned the 2020 Abraham Accords under whose auspices Israel has normalized ties with four Arab countries, improved the economy and led to $5 billion in trade.

Netanyahu compared the criticism he received to that which had been leveled against his financial overhaul, as well as against actions he took during his last tenure as Prime Minister. This included his opening of natural gas fields, his push for Israel to normalize ties with the Arab world before resolving its conflict with the Palestinians, and his leadership of Israel during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“These days, I am holding public and secret meetings to expand the Accords, and I am certain that when breakthroughs occur” and this work bears fruit, it will lead to even more economic growth, Cohen said.

He added that the current political instability has harmed Israel economically – and the stabilization brought about by a government that will remain in power will only help the country’s financial standing.

The prime minister compared criticism he has received to that which was leveled against actions he took during his last tenure as leader. This included his opening of natural gas fields, his push for Israel to normalize ties with the Arab world before resolving its conflict with the Palestinians, and his leadership of Israel during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Over the years, many people were wrong all along the way,” he said. “The removal of gas from the ocean, which has received many criticisms and protests from many, has already brought in tens of billions of shekels a year.

“Today, everyone is blessed by it, including those who opposed it. This step was delayed for years due to excess legalization,” he said. “Unnecessary legal processes delayed important projects for years, such as Highway 6 and the high-speed train between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Projects that made the lives of millions of citizens easier were stopped and delayed for years. The excess of legalization is like sand in the wheels of the Israeli economy.”

Smotrich spoke next, beginning his complaints against critics of the proposed judicial reform by remarking that “a lie that is repeated a lot apparently becomes the truth. A billion lies will not become the truth.

“Israel’s macro data are fantastic due to consistent and good government policies. Public spending has decreased and its composition is much more growth oriented than in the past and than in most other countries,” he continued. “We will continue with the same responsible policy of a budget biased towards infrastructure and growth.

“We are working hard these days and formulating a package of huge reforms, ones that will reduce regulation and bureaucracy and strengthen competition,” Smotrich said. “Israel is the Start-Up Nation, and precisely against the background of the uncertainty in the world markets, the State of Israel will be an island of stability, certainty and responsibility, and this will be the best place [for investors] to put their money.”

According to critics, the proposed reform would severely diminish Israel’s reputation among foreign investors and negatively affect the state’s credit rating by severely limiting the legal authority of Israel’s High Court of Justice.

Economists: Israel's credit rating will be weakened by reform

More than 270 senior Israeli economists published a letter on Wednesday morning warning against the proposed reforms. The signees included experts from all sides of the political spectrum, including Nobel Prize-laureate Daniel Kahneman.

“We, lecturers in economics and management, express our deep concern regarding the government’s actions intended to weaken the judicial system and public service’s independence, which we think will cause unprecedented harm to Israel’s economy,” the economists wrote..

Israel’s economy is small yet open, and its attractiveness to foreign investors is due in a large part to its strong judiciary and public gatekeepers, which ensure that investors will be shielded from capricious government decisions, the economists argued. Weakening the judicial system would “significantly raise” the possibility of a decrease in Israel’s credit rating – as happened in Poland in 2016, when the credit rating service P&S explained its decision to lower the country’s credit rating on its weakening of its judiciary, they said.

The decrease in investments will lead first and foremost to damage to Israel’s “economic engine,” the hi-tech sector, the economists warned. This, combined with the fact that weakening the judiciary would lead to a weakening in the defense of personal liberties, could also lead to a “brain drain.”

In the long term, some of the most oft-quoted papers, including those by Nobel Prize laureates, show that the concentration of power can lead to irreparable weakening of state economies, since the power often remains concentrated for decades, they added.

For these reasons, the economists “forcefully” warned against the coalition’s current steps, which would constitute “a fundamental change to Israel’s governing system and a danger to the future of Israel’s economy.”

On Tuesday, following a meeting with the president of the Bank of Israel, Netanyahu and Smotrich issued a statement to dispel these criticisms, saying that “the [government’s] intention is to maintain a responsible and restrained fiscal policy, and its alignment with the Bank of Israel’s monetary policy in order to preserve and stabilize Israel’s economy for the next four years.”

Earlier this week, the S&P credit-rating agency warned that the reform could have serious consequences for Israel’s rating – a sentiment supported by several leading experts in Israel, including Prof. Karnit Flug, vice president of the Israel Democracy Institute and a former Bank of Israel governor.

“Based on the experience of some other countries that went in the same direction, if the government goes ahead with the judicial reform as it intends, we definitely have a heightened risk of reducing our sovereign credit rating,” Flug told The Jerusalem Post.

In response to Wednesday night’s press conference, opposition leaders accused Netanyahu of not taking the economists’ warnings seriously.

Opposition leader MK Yair Lapid said, “Netanyahu’s hysterical and perspiring press conference does not leave room for doubt: Bibi is weak and he knows that he is leading to severe damage to Israel’s economy. All of Israel’s citizens will pay for it out of their pockets, and it will be costly.”

National Unity chairman MK Benny Gantz wrote on Twitter that the prime minister “disparages the protesters, threatens the attorney-general and cancels the [Bank of Israel] governor – but the reason to stop the coup d’etat is not just a dip in Israel’s credit rating or that IDF commanders abroad will not be [legally] defended – but first and foremost because it will ruin the basic values upon which the State of Israel was founded.

“Netanyahu, history will not forgive you for your destruction of the governing system and the split you are creating among the people. It is not too late to stop,” Gantz wrote.

Labor chairman MK Merav Michaeli said in a video that “two hundred and seventy of the most senior economists, some of whom Netanyahu appointed, together with the governor of the Bank of Israel, another Netanyahu appointee, say that the overthrow of the judicial system is a grave danger to Israel’s economy. No matter how many press conferences Netanyahu holds, or how many of his Likud bulldogs he sends to attack the governor of the bank, the judicial overthrow endangers Israel. We won’t allow it to pass.”

MK Avigdor Lieberman said, “The press conference of the prime minister and the three ministers proves that they are S-C-A-R-E-D, because they know the truth and understand that no party in the world is ready to swallow their lies and fabrications. The State of Israel is on the way to a crisis; an economy the likes of which we have not known for decades, and everything is Benjamin Netanyahu’s responsibility.”•

Eliav Breuer, Azchy Hennessey, Tovah Lazaroff

Source: https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/all-news/article-729563

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Palestinian Authority ends security coordination with Israel over Jenin raid - Khaled Abu Toameh

 

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Palestinian leaders are calling on the international community to sanction Israel after an Israeli Military operation in Jenin resulted in Palestinian deaths.

 

People gather near the remains of the house of Palestinian terrorist Ahmad Aabed after Israeli forces demolish it, in Kafr Dan village, near Jenin, in the West Bank, January 2, 2023.

(photo credit: REUTERS/RANEEN SAWAFTA)

The Palestinian Authority ended its security coordination with Israel on Thursday after the Israeli military operation in the Jenin refugee camp earlier in the day in which nine Palestinians were killed, according to PA spokesperson Navil abu Radina.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas announced three days of mourning for the dead. He also called an emergency meeting of the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah to discuss the latest developments.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health said another 20 Palestinians were injured, four of them seriously, during the operation.

Palestinian reaction

In some parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Palestinians took to the streets to protest the Israeli “massacre” as a general strike was observed in several cities and towns.

Several Palestinian terrorist groups, meanwhile, threatened to avenge the death of the Palestinians in the camp.

Abbas is facing increasing pressure to halt security coordination with Israel, especially in the aftermath of the Israeli security forces’ major counterterrorism operation on Thursday morning, said a senior Palestinian official in Ramallah.

Palestinians inspect the damage following an Israeli raid in Jenin in the West Bank January 26, 2023. (credit: REUTERS/RANEEN SAWAFTA)

The official said he did not rule out the possibility that the issue would be raised during the meeting of the Palestinian leadership.

The official strongly criticized the US administration and accused it of failure to “stop the new extremist government in Israel from perpetrating massacres against the Palestinians.”

PA presidential spokesman Nabil Abu Rudaineh denounced the international community for remaining silent about the Israeli “massacre” in the Jenin refugee camp.

“The international powerlessness and silence is what encourages the occupation government to commit massacres against our people,” he said in a statement. “Our people will remain steadfast and won’t give up Jerusalem and the holy sites, no matter what crimes and massacres the occupation forces commit.”

PA Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh called for “urgent international action to stop Israeli massacres and aggression.”

The military operation in the Jenin refugee camp would not discourage the Palestinians from pursuing their “struggle to achieve their rights,” he said, adding that the international community must respond to the latest Israeli practices by imposing “punitive measures against those who continue to commit crimes against the defenseless Palestinian people.”

Shtayyeh said the new Israeli government was seeking to find a solution to the “internal crisis it’s facing, and that’s why the Palestinians are paying the price with their blood and suffering.”

Rawhi Fattouh, chairman of the Palestine National Council, the legislative body of the Palestine Liberation Organization, accused Israel of committing a “heinous crime and massacre.”The Israeli government was fully responsible for the “crimes and massacres,” he said.

Fattouh blamed the international community for “not taking any measure to rein in the fascist Israeli government.” He also called for prosecuting Israeli government officials and IDF officers and soldiers before international courts for allegedly perpetrating “war crimes” against the Palestinians.

Abbas’s ruling Fatah faction urged Palestinians to “confront the occupation and its barbaric aggression.” It also criticized the international community for not taking “substantial measures” against Israel.Saleh Arouri, deputy chairman of Hamas’s political bureau, said Israel would “pay the price for the massacre it committed in Jenin and its refugee camp.”

Saleh Arouri, Deputy Chairman of the Hamas political bureau, said in a statement that Israel “will pay the price for the massacre it committed in Jenin and its refugee camp.”

“The will of the Palestinian people is stronger than the crimes of the occupation,” Arouri said in a statement, urging the Palestinians to retaliate against Israel “with all available means.”

Islamic Jihad, which has a strong military presence in the Jenin refugee camp, said the Israeli operation would not deter its members from pursuing the “path of jihad and resistance.” Its men were ready for another clash with Israel, it said.

Khaled Abu Toameh

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-729723

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Treason in America - Again - Lawrence Kadish

 

by Lawrence Kadish

This most recent indictment of a former FBI spy hunter is a searing reminder that treason is not some distant crime found in lamented chapters of our history.

 

As Benedict Arnold cynically realized centuries ago, treason may be the most threatening weapon our enemies can aim at the heart of a democracy, especially the one that leads the free world to keep it safe from tyranny. (Image source: MPI/Getty Images)

Benedict Arnold, move over.

Loathed as one of America's most despised traitors, we are reminded that Arnold once was the hero of Saratoga during the Revolutionary War, only to become a turncoat prepared to hand over West Point to the British.

During the last century there was Aldrich Ames, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer turned KGB double agent. Now serving a life sentence without parole, he did enormous damage to our national security while sending many American intelligence assets to their deaths in the Soviet Union. You want an example of how one American can do incalculable damage to his country? Read the Ames file.

But wait. There is now a 21^st Century indictment that, if proven in a court of law, is absolutely mind-numbing.

The FBI's former top spy-hunter based in New York, Charles McGonigal, has been charged with violating U.S. sanctions and other criminal counts stemming from alleged ties to Russian oligarch billionaire Oleg Deripaska, a confident of Vladimir Putin.

The indictment also says McGonigal is accused of trying to get Deripaska removed from a U.S. sanctions list.

A second indictment accuses the G-man of hiding payments totaling $225,000 that he allegedly received from an individual considered an asset by an Albanian intelligence agency.

For those who believe that our nation, with all of its faults, remains mankind's last best hope, this is stunning news. Not only does this indictment suggest that our country's security can be purchased by our enemies, but also that those sworn to defend America can allegedly be bought and paid for – again.

How is this possible? How low can the human spirit sink that there would be those who would sell their souls, and their nation's safety, for cash?

Ames once provided an answer to CNN during a 1998 interview.

He said his reasons were "personal, banal, and amounted really to greed and folly." The "payout" for his betrayal was approximately $2.7 million. Tell that to the men and women buried at Arlington.

This most recent indictment of a former FBI spy hunter is a searing reminder that treason is not some distant crime found in lamented chapters of our history. Its poison is still found among individuals of authority within our national institutions, where it remains insidious, lethal, and malignant:

"Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." (United States Constitution)

As Benedict Arnold cynically realized centuries ago, treason may be the most threatening weapon our enemies can aim at the heart of a democracy, especially the one that leads the free world to keep it safe from tyranny.

Lawrence Kadish serves on the Board of Governors of Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19346/treason-in-america

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Turkey's Elections Are Not Just Turkey's - Burak Bekdil

 

by Burak Bekdil

Turkey's 2023 elections will not only be a race between those Turks who want freedom and despise Islamist rule and those who prefer to starve while dreaming of Ottoman times. It also promises to be maker of Turkey's global journey for at least the next five years.

• To maximize the opportunity for the Turkish public to come to the polls... President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan brought forward the election date from an originally scheduled June 18 to May 14.

• Erdoğan's treatment -- through a judiciary totally under his control -- of one of his potential rivals, Istanbul's Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, who defeated Erdogan's party in 2019, is revealing. A court sentenced the popular İmamoğlu to a two-year prison sentence and a ban from politics for calling election officials who had annulled his first election "idiots." (Imamoğlu won twice.) If his conviction is not annulled or overturned, that verdict may take the Imamoğlu out of the presidential race.

• Erdoğan has made it a habit to use the courts in the way he thinks would best suit his political agenda. As of 2020, the number of Kurdish mayors in prison was 21. The Erdoğan administration had appointed its own administrators to 45 of a total of 65 municipalities won by the pro-Kurdish party, Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP), in 2019.

• Turkey's Constitutional Court is currently being asked to order the closure of the party, which has 56 deputies in Turkey's parliament. An indictment against the party seeks to ban 451 politicians and party members from organized political activity or membership of political parties for a period of five years and forfeiture of the party's assets.... Even the mere freezing of assets [as has occurred] will deprive the HDP of the means to finance its election campaign.

• Turkey's 2023 elections will not only be a race between those Turks who want freedom and despise Islamist rule and those who prefer to starve while dreaming of Ottoman times. It also promises to be maker of Turkey's global journey for at least the next five years.

Turkey's 2023 elections will not only be a race between those Turks who want freedom and despise Islamist rule and those who prefer to starve while dreaming of Ottoman times. It also promises to be maker of Turkey's global journey for at least the next five years. Pictured: President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan addresses a meeting of provincial election officials in Ankara on January 29, 2019. (Photo by Adem Altan/AFP via Getty Images)

Everyone in Turkey, in its region and in countries with interests or concerns about Turkey's political future, probably agree that presidential and parliamentary elections this spring will be the most important for every nation involved. To maximize the opportunity for the Turkish public to come to the polls, after calculating external factors such as Muslim Hajj pilgrimage, a religious holiday and university entrance exams, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan brought forward the election date from an originally scheduled June 18 to May 14.

In its January 20 edition, The Economist put Turkey's elections on its cover page, with the headline, "Turkey's looming dictatorship." The magazine commented: "The longer Mr Erdoğan has been in power, the more autocratic he has grown." The Economist also reminded readers that "Erdogan once likened democracy to a tram journey: when you reach your destination, you get off." It concluded: "Mr Erdoğan's behavior as the election approaches could push what is today a deeply flawed democracy over the edge into a full-blown dictatorship."

Erdoğan's treatment -- through a judiciary totally under his control -- of one of his potential rivals, Istanbul's Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, who defeated Erdogan's party in 2019, is revealing. A court sentenced the popular İmamoğlu to a two-year prison sentence and a ban from politics for calling election officials who had annulled his first election "idiots." (Imamoğlu won twice.) If his conviction is not annulled or overturned, that verdict may take the Imamoğlu out of the presidential race.

Imamoğlu's court verdict was not surprising. Erdoğan has made it a habit to use the courts in the way he thinks would best suit his political agenda. As of 2020, the number of Kurdish mayors in prison was 21. The Erdoğan administration had appointed its own administrators to 45 of a total of 65 municipalities won by the pro-Kurdish party, Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP), in 2019.

The HDP, the second biggest opposition party in the Turkish parliament, typically wins 10% to 14% of the national vote; many observers think it can be the kingmaker in the election. Erdoğan is working on dissolving the HDP ahead of the May elections. Turkey's Constitutional Court is currently being asked to order the closure of the party, which has 56 deputies in Turkey's parliament. An indictment against the party seeks to ban 451 politicians and party members from organized political activity or membership of political parties for a period of five years and forfeiture of the party's assets.

On January 5, the Constitutional Court agreed to a request by the chief prosecutor of the Court of Cassation for an interim measure of freezing the party's bank accounts, which contain funds from the state treasury that political party groups in parliament are entitled to receive. Even the mere freezing of assets will deprive the HDP of the means to finance its election campaign.

Many countries in or outside of Turkey's geographical proximity have stakes in its election results. The vote, in addition to governing Turkey, will be about whether the Turks are happy with their rogue government, or whether they want a recalibration of policy in favor of a safe anchor at the Western bay. Should Erdoğan be defeated, says Sinan Ülgen, director of the Istanbul think tank EDAM, "his successor will transform Turkey into a different foreign policy actor, more comfortable with its position as a Western nation."

Erdoğan has undermined NATO's security in countless strategic ways. He is ideologically anti-Western. He is a revisionist dreaming of reviving the "glorious Ottoman past" he adores, and he does not hide it. His disruptive influence on regional and international politics since he took power in 2002 is beyond dispute. According to a report in the Washington Post:

"... Erdogan's worldview is 'far more radical than most Westerners think,' says political analyst Selim Koru. His ambitions for Turkey's immediate neighborhood, where Ankara is increasingly influential, is not to complement American and European influence, 'it's to replace and counter them,' Koru says."

Former US National Security Advisor John Bolton has called on the NATO military alliance to expel Turkey and give support to its opposition parties; he accuses it of not acting like an ally. In an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal, Bolton criticized Erdogan's "divisive and dangerous" performance and "belligerent regional policies."

Bolton urged the West to take "bold action to help ensure his domestic opposition gets a fair shake in upcoming presidential elections" this year, adding that "Turkish voters will have a chance to take their country."

Bolton is right. But there might also be a point of counter-productivity here. When criticism of Erdoğan comes so directly from what many Turkish voters still believe as "Turk-hating infidels, imperialists and former colonialists who hate Erdogan because he stands against them," even some Erdoğan-sceptic Turks tend to feel that "we must be united behind our country's leader."

The Turkish anger over The Economist's cover page and its Turkish election stories is the best proof. Erdoğan's spokesman, Fahrettin Altun, said:

"Here we go again! The Economist recycles its intellectually lazy, dull, and purposefully ignorant depiction of [Turkey]... It seems like they feel obligated to announce the end of Turkish democracy through regurgitating cliches, misinformation and blatant propaganda."

A big chorus of Turkish newspapers joined the government propaganda that that all criticism from the West, including from non-state independent media, is proof of centuries-old Turk-hating. İmamoğlu, who may be running against Erdoğan, said that "It's so apparent who benefits from such [Western] criticism of the government."

Turkey's 2023 elections will not only be a race between those Turks who want freedom and despise Islamist rule and those who prefer to starve while dreaming of Ottoman times. It also promises to be maker of Turkey's global journey for at least the next five years.

Burak Bekdil, one of Turkey's leading journalists, was recently fired from the country's most noted newspaper after 29 years, for writing in Gatestone what is taking place in Turkey. He is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19342/turkey-elections

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter