Displaying posts published in

2016

Netanyahu Pays Visit to Strategically Positioned Azerbaijan Iranians now fretting the Israeli military option is back on the table. Ari Lieberman

On Monday, Israel took delivery of its first two F-35I “Adir” multi-purpose fighters. Barring any unexpected cost overruns, Israel is slated to take delivery of a further 48 of these machines, reckoned to be the most advanced in the world. The acquisition will add to Israel’s already formidable fleet of F-16I, F-15I and F-15C fighter bombers.

The following day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, paid an official state visit to Azerbaijan to meet with his counterpart, President Ilham Aliyev, to sign various trade agreements and solidify understandings. Despite the fact that Azerbaijan is predominantly Shia, the Muslim nation maintains very good relations with Israel.

The two events are seemingly mutually exclusive but must be viewed within a wider geo-political context involving the Islamic Republic of Iran, its militarized nuclear program and the JCPOA, more commonly referred to as the Iran Deal.

In any strike against Iran, the F-35, with its stealth capabilities, advanced avionics and large payload, will be the tip of the Israeli spear. These aircraft along with F-15 and F-16 fighter jets will be at the forefront of any operation targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Israel also has an undisclosed number of Jericho III intercontinental ballistic missiles that can accurately deliver a payload of 1,000 kilograms of high explosives over a distance of 6,000 kilometers – well within range of every square inch of the Islamic Republic. The Jericho can also be fitted with an unconventional warhead. It is silo-based but there have been reports that Israel possesses a mobile tracked or wheeled version as well.

There will be a role for Israeli Navy as well. Its recent acquisition of the INS Rahav, its fifth submarine, will significantly enhance Israel’s offensive and defensive capabilities. The craft can accurately deliver the Israeli version of the American Tomhawk cruise missile called the Popeye Turbo, and do so virtually undetected. The Popeye Turbo can also be equipped with an unconventional warhead. Israel’s advanced submarine platforms will also be tasked with carrying out covert operations.

But Iran is large and distant. Its nuclear facilities are well protected, fortified and scattered about the country. Israel will need to covertly partner with other nations bordering Iran to ensure maximum success.

California Gov. Jerry Brown Seeks Permanent Ban on Oil and Gas Drilling An end-run at Trump. Katy Grimes

California Gov. Jerry Brown wants President Barack Obama to permanently ban new offshore oil and gas drilling in the state – except of course, on Brown’s personal land.

In an attempt to lock in environmental protections before President-Elect Donald Trump takes office in January, Brown sent a letter this week to the president saying that allowing any new oil and gas drilling would be detrimental to climate change goals and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

President Barack Obama last month released a plan to ban any new drilling off the coasts of California, Oregon or Washington until 2022.

A six-year ban on oil and gas drilling wasn’t enough for California Gov. Jerry Brown, who will be gone from the Governor’s office in 2018.

Brown’s latest ploy is another in a long line of maneuvers to set California apart from the rest of the country on climate change policy, and is an end-run at Trump, who has said he plans environmental policy roll backs at the Environmental Protections Agency.

Brown’s demand was announced at the luxurious and historic Hotel del Coronado, near San Diego, where he and other government and nonprofit leaders launched the International Alliance to Combat Ocean Acidification. The alliance, made up of California, Oregon, Washington, France, Chile and numerous environmental groups, plans to fast track environmental regulations to fight against “ocean acidification.”

“The health of the ocean is at great risk,” said Washington Gov. Jay Inslee. “The food security of the planet is at risk. Whether my grand kids can fish for salmon when they grow up is at great risk.”

Brown said he didn’t know if Trump would have the authority to overturn a permanent prohibition. “I’m not waiting for what Washington may or may not do,” Brown said. “I’m doing whatever I can for the resources of California, and any other state or country that will join with us. This is not about politics. It’s about survival within the lifetime of the people of this room.”

Brown’s Go-It-Alone Plan

This isn’t Gov. Jerry Brown’s first scheme to set California apart from the rest of the nation on energy policy.

June 30, 2008, the governors of Alaska, British Columbia, California, Oregon, and Washington signed the Pacific Coast Collaborative Agreement, amounting to a ‘compact,’ which is prohibited between states without Congressional approval.

David Singer: France Humiliated by Abbas but Israel Remains Focused

France’s reported decision to postpone an international conference planned for December 21.

Originally proposed on 3 June – France’s blatant attempt to replace the conduct of direct negotiations between Israel and the PLO – as provided for in the internationally approved Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap – has embarrassingly fallen flat on its face.

In a document issued in September explaining France’s position – the French Foreign Office asserted:

“France has launched a two-phase initiative. A ministerial meeting, first, took place in Paris on June 3rd 2016, without the Israelis and Palestinians, in order to reaffirm the international community’s commitment to the two-State solution. At that meeting, the main international actors expressed their willingness to create a framework and incentives so that credible negotiations can resume. An international conference, to which all parties will be invited, will be organized in the second half of 2016 for this purpose.”

Surely it would have been much easier – and certainly much cheaper and more effective – for France to pick up the phone and invite both Israel and the PLO to Paris to sit down and resume their negotiations (stalled since 2014) without pre-conditions and outside foreign interference.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had publicly expressed his readiness to do so on many occasions – but PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas refused to indicate his willingness to do likewise.

The international community may well be concerned to see the two-state solution – the creation of a second Arab State in former Palestine in addition to Jordan – slowly sinking into oblivion.

However the way to resuscitate it was not by calling an international conference – but by threatening both parties with retaliatory action if they failed to meet somewhere at some nominated time and place.

In Britain, the Tories Settle on the Sweet Spot between Populism and Post-Democracy Theresa May is strengthening both her party and democracy. : John O’Sullivan

David Cameron made a quiet return to British politics late last week by giving a talk to American students in London on, among other topics, the question of Brexit. He blamed Brexit — and by extension his own resignation — on “populism.”

I am tempted — okay, I’ll yield to the temptation — to quote Dr. Johnson: “There are ten thousand stout fellows in the streets of London ready to fight to the death against Popery, though they know not whether it be a man or a horse.” Strike out “Popery” and insert “populism” (and maybe change London to Brussels) and you have the present state of establishment European politics in a nutshell.

Populism is the omnipotent demon responsible for all the defeats and humiliations that Brussels and mainstream political parties of Left and Right have suffered in the last year. It conjures up the picture of an unreasonable rage driving millions of voters to embrace wild impossible ideas and undermining common sense and political stability. It’s a useful label to attach to anything you happen to dislike.

Mr. Cameron undermined his own argument, however, by saying on the same occasion that he thought the European Union might eventually collapse because it is inextricably bound up with the single currency, the euro, which is inflicting recession and unemployment on southern Europe. All the same, he wanted Britain to remain in the EU on the grounds that it would make Britain more prosperous in the long run.

If populists can’t follow Cameron’s logic here — How to get Rich from Inside the Coming Euro-Collapse — they may have got something right. So let’s examine populism more closely — I began doing so last week — to see what it really is and where it takes us. We now have a good (but not infallible) guide in the latest issue of the Journal of Democracy, which devotes a number of articles and columns to the topic. And since I disagree with some of the points argued there, I should say that the issue — notably the articles by Ivan Krastev and Takis S. Pappas — is very illuminating and full of good arguments from several standpoints.

The Conservative Case for Nuclear Energy It’s reliable, safe, and, unlike solar and wind, doesn’t eat up huge swathes of land. By Robert Bryce

As the Trump transition team prepares to take power in Washington, they should be making the conservative case for nuclear energy.

During the campaign, President-elect Donald Trump declared: “Nuclear power is a valuable source of energy and should be part of an all-the-above program for providing power for America long into the future. We can make nuclear power safer, and its outputs are extraordinary given the investment we should make.”

Being pro-nuclear doesn’t require adhering to any particular orthodoxy on climate change or greenhouse gases. Conservatives should support America’s nuclear-energy sector for three reasons: generation diversity, technological leadership, and land sparing.

Before going further, let’s be clear: The U.S. nuclear sector is in crisis. Over the past three years, utilities from Vermont to California have shuttered six reactors, and another five are slated to close. The most recent announced closure, of the 800-megawatt Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan, came just days after Illinois legislators passed a bill that will provide subsidies to keep three reactors in that state in operation. While it’s unclear how many reactors may ultimately be prematurely shuttered, the Center for Energy Economics at the University of Texas has estimated that up to 40 percent of all U.S. nuclear capacity could be closed over the next decade or so.

Many factors are to blame for the nuclear sector’s woes, including low natural-gas prices, aging reactors, post-Fukushima regulations, and heavily subsidized wind and solar. The result is that many reactors can’t make money selling their electricity into wholesale markets, where prices are at, or near, 15-year lows.

What is to be done? President-elect Trump and Congress should move to preserve existing reactors and pave the way for the next generation of safer, cheaper reactors. To be sure, keeping existing reactors will require some of them to get financial help. But those subsidies will help the U.S. maintain a diverse set of generation assets. The polar vortex in early 2014, when extreme cold led to a surge in electricity demand, proved the importance of that diversity. During that time, numerous coal- and natural gas-fired plants faltered, but America’s reactor fleet operated at 95 percent of its capacity. Without those plants, large parts of the country could have been hit by blackouts.

In London, U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter Can’t Guarantee U.S. Will Stay ‘Actively Engaged as Leader of This Coalition’ to Defeat ISIS By Bridget Johnson

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told reporters in London today that while he can’t give allies assurances that the next administration will continue leading the global coalition to defeat the Islamic State, he believes he can make a good case for continuity with his successor.

Appearing at a joint press conference with his counterpart, UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, Carter emphasized that the “coalition military campaign plan we laid out last January has been on track and proceeding just as we envisioned.”

Foreign ministers discussed how “countries can do even more to accelerate ISIL’s defeat, because the sooner we defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria, the safer all of us in our homelands will be.”

“I was pleased to hear around the table today a number of coalition countries announce additional military contributions that they’ll be making to accelerate the campaign,” Carter added.

Fallon declared that ISIS “is now failing.”

“It controls less than 10 percent of the Iraqi. It’s lost more than a quarter of land it once held in Syria. Its supply of recruits has dried up. And more than 25,000 Daesh fighters have now been killed,” the British secretary said. “…In the last three years, our police and security services have disrupted 12 plots here in the United Kingdom, all either linked to or inspired by Daesh. And that is why the coalition needs to do even more to share its intelligence insight.”

Carter, who has been on a two-week trip with his wife Stephanie to thank U.S. troops, acknowledged “we’re undergoing a presidential transition in America right now — and as I did today with my counterparts, I will share my lessons learned with my successor at the appropriate time, detailing the logic of our campaign plan and the strategic approach, and how we’re seeing results on the ground.”

“And among my recommendations will be the need for the United States to remain actively engaged as leader of this coalition, to ensure that we deliver ISIL a lasting defeat and continue to protect our homelands,” he said.

The Defense secretary said he “can’t give assurances” to coalition allies that the U.S. will stay the course, but he has “confidence in the future of the coalition campaign.”

Now There Are Calls for Consent Before Kids Receive Hugs and Kisses from Grandma By Walter Hudson (!!!????)

Kids own their bodies, and must give consent before hugs and kisses from Grandma. That’s an argument from Scary Mommy:

Teaching children about consent is crucial, so why do some parents still insist their kids hug and kiss relatives even if they don’t want to? As consent and bodily autonomy become a bigger conversation, there are those speaking out about how we need to give children agency over their own bodies — even if it means turning down hugs from grandma and grandpa.

The piece shares this meme found on social media:

Author Valerie Williams expounds:

…how many of us grew up with our parents insisting we accept hugs and kisses from grandmas, grandpas, aunts and uncles with zero regard for our feelings on the subject? I remember being anxious at big family events as a kid knowing how many of our distant relatives would expect to touch me. I recall being nervous of how they smelled or how their beard stubble felt — and the persistent feeling that I simply didn’t want to be touched.

That’s why it’s so crucial that we recognize the validity of those instincts in even the youngest kids. They may not be able to articulate the reason for their discomfort with physical affection, but we need to honor it in order to make good on our lessons of consent. How can we tell our kids that their bodies are their own and then remove that very agency because Aunt Betty wants to give them a kiss? The lesson needs to be that it’s up to them every time — no exceptions.

Except it’s not up to them. From where does this notion of a child’s consent arise? A child’s entire life proceeds without his consent, and often in direct contradiction to his expressed will. That’s a defining aspect of childhood. Aside from physical characteristics, the ability to live by consent is the very thing which distinguishes adults from children. The whole point of parenting is to substitute the guardian’s judgment for the child’s, to override consent on a regular basis.

The Washington Post’s Islam vs. Donald Trump’s Islam By Paul Austin Murphy

We can never win this “civilizational conflict” if we keep on insisting that Islam itself is blameless.

The Trump campaign against radical Islam doesn’t pull any punches. And why should it? We’re talking about a religion which has tens of millions (or more) adherents who’d love to blow the United States off the map. (That’s after Israel, of course.)

However, according to Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post, it’s Trump and his advisers who believe in “civilizational conflict”. (Presumably after the analysis offered in Samuel Huntington’s book, The Clash of Civilisations.)

Diehl says that Trump’s appointee, Stephen K. Bannon, speaks in terms of a “long history of the Judeo-Christian West’s struggle against Islam”. Michael T. Flynn, the incoming national security adviser, is also in favor of “a world war against a messianic mass movement of evil people”.

Indeed, Flynn has got the measure of things. He once wrote:

“I don’t believe that all cultures are morally equivalent, and I think the West, and especially America, is far more civilized, far more ethical and moral.”

Jackson Diehl thinks that such “Islamophobic” words are counterproductive. That such words cause — rather than solve – problems. But is systematically lying about Islam a successful policy? Are there fewer Islamic terrorists today than there were twenty or even ten years ago? Are Muslims, as a whole, becoming more moderate? Is there a Muslim “reform movement” spreading across the world or even in Europe and the U.S.?

So let’s start telling the truth about Islam, as Flynn and millions of others are attempting to do.

Jackson Diehl lays his own cards on the table when he says that François Fillon’s book, Conquering Islamic Totalitarianism, is an example of what he calls “anti-Muslim rhetoric”. Diehl even has a problem with the suicidal Islamophile Angela Merkel. He said that she “felt obliged to strike an anti-Islamic pose last week, proposing a crackdown on the minuscule number of German women who wear a burqa”.

Jackson Diehl also has a big problem with Egypt’s Abdel Fatah al-Sissi, whom Trump supports. Did Diehl prefer the Muslim Brotherhood regime? You know, the movement that has traditionally persecuted and bombed the Christian Copts of Egypt?

U.S. Deploys Tanks to Bolster Force in Europe Army restocks Cold War-era Dutch depot as deterrent to Russia By Julian E. Barnes

EYGELSHOVEN, Netherlands—The U.S. Army reopened a Cold War-era storage facility here on Thursday and began restocking it with tanks, part of the American effort to return heavy weaponry to Europe in the face of Russia’s military buildup.

The U.S. Army is moving to put in place congressionally approved military forces in Europe, including rotating a heavy brigade into Europe beginning in January. In early spring, units from North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies will begin moving into the Baltic states.

“Three years ago, the last American tank left Europe; we all wanted Russia to be our partner,” said Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, the commander of U.S. Army Europe. “My country is bringing tanks back…as part of our commitment to deterrence in Europe.”

The annual defense authorization act, passed by Congress with veto-proof majorities, approved a $3.4 billion spending plan to boost European defenses including reopening or creating five equipment-storage sites in the Netherlands, Poland, Belgium and two locations in Germany.

The Obama administration pushed for the European defense provisions, though President Barack Obama hasn’t yet signed the act. The incoming Trump administration has signaled it wants a more cooperative relationship with Russia, but hasn’t made clear if President-elect Donald Trump would try to alter or adjust the current plan for boosting European defenses.

U.S. and Dutch officials noted that the storage facilities are well away from NATO’s border with Russia, in part to ensure they aren’t seen as provocative and don’t violate the alliance’s agreement with Russia not to permanently station large forces on the border.

But Gen. Tom Middendorp, the Dutch chief of defense, said the new facility is a sign that NATO will stand together.

“We are taking proportionate and measured steps to defend our alliance,” he said. “We want to make sure we are sending a clear signal to Russia that we will not accept any violation of NATO’s territorial integrity.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Mau-Mauing the Trump Electors Progressives misread Hamilton to overrule democratic norms.

Even before taking the oath of office, Donald Trump has achieved the impossible—driving liberals to the original text of the Constitution. This strange new respect for the Founders will only last until the President-elect nominates a new Supreme Court Justice, and too bad it arrives as an assault on the Electoral College to elect someone other than Mr. Trump.

This organized political campaign is being conducted in the name of Alexander Hamilton, and not merely because of the Broadway musical. In Federalist No. 68, Hamilton wrote that the Electoral College “affords a moral certainty, that the office of president will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

Progressives are invoking this line to claim Mr. Trump lacks such qualifications. And they are calling on those they call the “Hamilton electors” to vote for Hillary Clinton or somebody else when they meet on Dec. 19. The immediate goal is to peel away 37 from Mr. Trump’s 306-vote majority and deny him 270 votes.

This gambit is being promoted by supposedly lucid Members of Congress, liberal columnists, left-leaning constitutional scholars and Hollywood celebrities. OK, maybe the last group is not-so-lucid, but remnants of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign are also on board. GOP electors report being bombarded with tens of thousands of emails and phone calls.

There is an originalist constitutional case that the electors are supposed to act as an deliberative body who can exercise their own “discernment,” as Hamilton put it. They could vote for anyone they choose.

But the Electoral College as the framers conceived it was never meant to be independent of the popular will. The framers had tremendous respect for the judgment of the people, and the electors aren’t supposed to be de novo second guessers. There have been 150 faithless electors in U.S. history, and only nine since World War II.

The historical record suggests that discernment was meant to be triggered only in exceptional circumstances when new information about a President-elect’s “qualifications” unknown to voters emerged after the general election. Nobody can claim that Americans didn’t understand the nature of Donald J. Trump when they voted.

There have been no revelations. The Russian hacking only divulged material about Mrs. Clinton and the conduct of her staff, not Mr. Trump’s fitness. Some Hamilton renegades claim a vote for Mrs. Clinton is legitimate because she won the popular vote, but everybody knew the electoral rules in advance.