RUTHFULLY YOURS

Handling epidemics isn’t the World Health Organization’s forte—unless fighting against sugary drinks counts.

The Ebola outbreak has again revealed an international health system that lacks the plans and capabilities to fight an epidemic or pandemic. Atop the pyramid of this health system sits the United Nations’ World Health Organization, whose 1948 charter gives it “directing authority” for “international health work.”

In lieu of another round of incremental reforms at the WHO and another appeal for budget increases, it is time to try something else. We need a new organization within the international health system to prevent, detect and verify outbreaks—and respond rapidly to them.

The WHO’s record of handling epidemics over 30 years reveals a health system that is getting worse, not better. On at least four occasions the U.N. organization has failed to deal with major outbreaks of communicable disease.

In the 1980s, the WHO underestimated the scale of the AIDS epidemic and was plagued by infighting and poor coordination. The U.N. Economic and Social Council concluded in 1994 that the AIDS crisis was beyond the WHO’s capabilities to coordinate, so the U.N. created a new entity, the Joint U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS, or Unaids. Although the WHO opposed the new program, history has shown that Unaids, with its clear, narrowly defined mission, has been more effective in addressing the AIDS epidemic.

In 2009 the World Health Organization was slow to address the H1N1 flu pandemic. It later commissioned an expert panel to investigate its mishandling of the crisis. The report released in 2011 slammed the WHO for making crucial errors, including a lack of transparency, poor external communication, management conflicts, and a “needlessly complex” definition of pandemic and its phases. H1N1 ended in 2010 and we were fortunate the strain had a lower mortality than initially feared. Notably, the panel concluded that the world isn’t ready to handle a major health disaster.

If you want to understand the challenge Western liberalism faces from Islamic supremacism, take six minutes to watch this extraordinary interview of Ayad Jamal al-Din, a Shiite cleric, Iraqi intellectual, and former member of the Iraqi parliament who campaigns for a democratic Iraq that separates mosque and state. Mr. al-Din was in Washington for the October 17 interview by al-Iraqiya TV in Iraq, and the interview with English subtitles (which I’ve reproduced as a transcript below) was publicized on Monday by the invaluable MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research Institute).

While President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and Prime Minister Cameron absurdly contend that the Islamic State, or ISIS, is not Islamic, al-Din – an authentic moderate Muslim who regards the Islamic State as the enemy – patiently explains that the jihadist organization adheres to a firmly established interpretation of Islam that is based on sharia and fiqh (jurisprudence).

I have repeatedly argued that classical, mainstream sharia is repressive, discriminatory, and anti-democratic, and thus that it was self-defeating for the United States to sponsor new constitutions in Iraq and Afghanistan that attempted to meld Western democratic principles with sharia (see here, here, and here). It is especially gratifying to hear a passionate, articulate explanation of the incompatibility of Western democracy and Islamic jurisprudence from someone who reveres the former, is steeped in the latter, and understands the stakes.

Moreover, for those of us who frequently point out that mosques – which Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna described as the “axis” of his ideological movement in every city and town – are often centers for jihadist incitement, recruitment, training and fundraising, it is refreshing to hear someone intimately familiar with this phenomenon explain that there are mosques throughout the world directly and indirectly championing the Islamic State by glorifying jihad and the caliphate.

Our national security will not be well served until the United States government ends its futile search for “moderate Islamists” and realizes our allies in the Muslim community are the real moderates, meaning pro-Western democrats who reject the imposition of sharia on civil society. Supporting our enemies only undermines our friends.

Here is the transcript:

The Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today’s Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to “liberate”?

Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?

On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.

A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs — a Muslim land occupied by “Palestinian” Arabs — has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states — not Israel — that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.

When U.S. President Barack Obama announces in the United Nations that he wants a two-state solution for Israel and “Palestine,” and when U.S. Secretary of State repeated it recently — and when Sweden and the UK vote for a Palestinian State, and now possibly Spain and France — they should be more careful what they wish for.

Although there is no lawful justification for offering statehood, but Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, on September 26, 2014, told the United Nations that “the hour of independence of the state of Palestine has arrived.” Earlier, in 2012, the PA had already received elevated status from the UN General Assembly to that of a “nonmember observer state,” but this elevation fell short of full sovereignty.

There can also be no justification — ethical, legal, or geopolitical — for waging war against the ISIS jihadis in Syria and Iraq, while simultaneously urging statehood for the Hamas/PA jihadis in West Bank [Judea and Samaria] and Gaza.

It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.

A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents “anti-Europe.”

Two years ago the European Commission proposed a law that would authorize an “independent authority” within the European Parliament [EP] to decide whether EP parties would receive an official legal status as EP parties. This legal status is needed for a party to obtain EP party subsidy, which is designed to cover 85% of party expenditures.

Despite a British and Dutch lobby against the law, it was passed by the EP on September 29, 2014.

Among the demands parties have to meet are that of “internal party democracy” and that they must “respect the values on which the European Union is based.” Among these values are: “pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men.” Also, the parties must be active in at least seven out of 28 EU member state countries.

The law states that: “decisions regarding a party’s respect for values on which the EU is based, may only be taken following a special procedure and in cooperation with a committee of independent prominent individuals.”

Although the law does not specify the composition of this illustrious special committee, it is highly probable that Martin Schulz, the EP’s chairman, is among them. Schulz is a German socialist who got reelected as EP chairman even though he was absent during the parliamentary debate for the position. Schulz is also known for strongly condemning the content and distribution of a film critical of Islam, “Innocence of Muslims,” and for his disproportionate criticism of Israel.

Even though the committee is designated as an “independent authority,” within the self-aggrandizing dynamic of the EU, one cannot be “prominent” and “independent” at the same time.

On Monday night I went to the Metropolitan Opera. I went for two reasons: to see and hear John Adams’ controversial opera, The Death of Klinghoffer; and to see and hear what those protesting the Met’s judgment in presenting the opera had to say. Peter Gelb, the head of the Met Opera, had advised people to see it for themselves and then decide.

That’s what I planned to do. Even though I had written critically of the opera—based on reading the libretto and listening to a recording—I was also critical of those who wanted to ban or censor it. I wanted personally to experience all sides of the controversy and then “decide.”

Lincoln Center made that difficult. After I bought my ticket, I decided to stand in the Plaza of Lincoln Center, across the street and in front of the protestors, so I could hear what they were saying and read what was on their signs. But Lincoln Center security refused to allow me to stand anywhere in the large plaza. They pushed me to the side and to the back, where I could barely make out the content of the protests. “Either go into the opera if you have a ticket or leave. No standing.” When I asked why I couldn’t remain in the large, open area between the protestors across the street and the opera house behind me, all I got were terse replies: “security,” “Lincoln Center orders.”

The end result was that the protestors were talking to and facing an empty plaza. It would be as if the Metropolitan Opera had agreed to produce The Death of Klinghoffer, but refused to allow anyone to sit in the orchestra, the boxes or the grand tier. “Family circle, upstairs, side views only.”

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio on Monday criticized his predecessor Rudolph Giuliani for objecting to the Metropolitan Opera’s performance of The Death of Klinghoffer and defended the Met’s right to stage the controversial performance that has been labeled anti-Semitic, the New York Daily News reported on Monday, hours before the play was set to open.

“The former mayor had a history of challenging cultural institutions when he disagreed with their content. I don’t think that’s the American way. The American way is to respect freedom of speech. Simple as that,” de Blasio said at an unrelated press conference.

Giuliani plans to lead the latest protest against the opera outside the Met on Monday, as the show opens.

Critics have labeled the performance anti-Semitic for glorifying the murder of Jewish-American cruise ship passenger Leon Klinghoffer, 69. Wheel chair-bound, Klinghoffer was shot in the head by Palestinian hijackers on the Achille Lauro cruise ship 29 years ago. The terrorists threw his body, along with his wheelchair, overboard into the Mediterranean Sea and his corpse washed up on the Syrian shoreline a few days later.

“I really think we have to be very careful in a free society to respect that cultural institutions will portray works of art – put on operas, plays, that there will be art exhibits in museums,” de Blasio said. “And in a free society we respect that. We don’t have to agree with what’s in the exhibit but we agree with the right of the artist and the cultural institution to put that forward to the public.”

Two dramatic presentations being staged this week will be delivering a powerful message with serious negative implications for the Jewish people.

Two dramatic presentations being staged this week, in venues thousands of miles apart on two different continents, will be delivering a powerful message with serious negative implications for the Jewish people. One is the opera The Death of Klinghoffer, which will make its New York debut at the Metropolitan Opera on Monday, October 20, and the second is the musical Cukurs.

Herberts Cukurs, currently on a nationwide tour in Latvia.

On the surface, there does not appear to be any ostensible connection between an opera about the hijacking by Palestinian terrorists of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985 and a musical about the life of aviator Herberts Cukurs, a national hero in the 1930s in his native Latvia, but a closer look at the presentations clearly indicates their highly problematic content.

In the case of The Death of Klinghoffer, the main issue is its portrayal of the Palestinian Liberation Front terrorists who murdered Leon Klinghoffer, a handicapped American Jewish tourist who was a passenger on the boat, and then threw his body and wheelchair overboard. In the words of the victim’s daughters Lisa and Ilsa, the opera “rationalizes, romanticizes and legitimizes the terrorist murder of our father.”

EU’s 40% carbon emissions plan to be vetoed, threatening global domino effect

Climate change scepticism is on the rise in Europe. Governments are not going to back a planned 40 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2030 at a time when the EU is on its knees economically. Poland has promised a veto, threatening a global domino effect

European Union member Poland has come out and said in public what many other governments in Europe are saying privately: The EU’s proposal next week to cut carbon emissions to 40 percent of the 1990 level by by 2030 would be disastrous for industry and cannot be allowed to go through.

Citing Polish Radio, Britain’s Global Warming Policy Forum said in a press release that Polish Deputy Prime Minister and Economy Minister Janusz Piechociński believed the plan was suicidal.

“If this initial proposal will look as it does now, then Poland will have no choice but to veto it… For the Polish economy minister and the majority of EU economy ministers the 40-percent option, which destroys half of Europe’s industry, is unacceptable,” he said.

The plan is due to be discussed at an EU climate summit in Brussels.

If it is vetoed or amended beyond recognition, analysts say this will have a major impact on climate change policies around the world. Taken collectively, the EU is the world’s largest economic bloc.

If European nations block the plan, say the analysts, there will be little incentive for countries from the United States to China to make further efforts to cut emissions, and the move could act as an incentive for them to back-track on previous commitments.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-european-slide-to-anti-zionism?f=puball

Although it isn’t binding, the British parliament voted in favor of recognizing a Palestinian state. British MPs voted 274 to 12 for a non-binding motion to “recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel as a contribution to securing a negotiated two state solution.” The remainder of the parliament’s 650 MPs abstained.

Whatever one thinks of this vote, it is a sign of shifting public opinion in the United Kingdom and beyond. The debate in the House of Commons came after the Swedish government announced it would recognize a Palestinian state – the first European Union member in Western Europe to do so. Many contend that the war in Gaza influenced British public opinion against Israel. While others maintain the vote was merely the evolution of attitudes promoted by home grown Muslims.

Britain’s ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, said even though the vote isn’t binding on the British government, it is “significant.” Alas, it is. The resolution was welcomed by Palestinians and criticized by Israel.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry argues that the “premature international recognition sends a troubling message to the Palestinian leadership that they can evade the tough choices that both sides have to make and actually undermines the chances to reach a real peace.” It is logical to ask why the Palestinians should negotiate at all when the end game has been established.

For years a two state solution has been bandied about, but arriving at an understanding about the boundaries and security remain in limbo. Suppose there is a sovereign Palestinian state with rockets that can paralyze Ben Gurion airport and reach every Israeli population center, is that a state Israel can countenance?

New media accounts – including coverage by NRO’s Patrick Brennan – confirm what I repeatedly have written since the depths of Operation Iraqi Freedom: The late dictator Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass death, and the United States of America was correct to invade Iraq, find these toxins, and destroy them. Also vital: padlocking this Baathist general store for militant-Islamic terrorism.

As I explained on July 17, 2006:

While the liberal press gently sleeps, evidence continues to mount that Hussein had WMDs, though perhaps not in quantities that would bulge warehouses.

“Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent,” states a June 21 declassified summary of a report from the National Ground Intelligence Center. “Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.”

It turns out that – based on open sources – I vastly underestimated the size of Hussein’s stockpiles of deadly devices.

In this story’s first outrage, it now transpires that Hussein had some 5,000 tank shells filled with sarin nerve gas, mustard gas, and other lethal agents. This is roughly ten times the arsenal that I reported that he possessed. Had I access to more accurate information back then, my pieces would have reflected the depth of Hussein’s supplies of these munitions.