Displaying posts published in

February 2017

FOREIGN POLICY, ISRAEL Comments turned off

Standing With Israel on the Golan Heights Recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the territory would send a strong message to U.S. friends and foes alike. By Jonathan Schanzer and Mark Dubowitz

By on February 17th, 2017

Benjamin Netanyahu has achieved his primary objective of resetting ties with the U.S. after eight years of tensions. True, the Israeli prime minister and Donald Trump still need to bridge the gap on issues such as Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy and West Bank settlements. But they seem to be on the same page on a broad range of regional matters.

That could lead to a breakthrough on an issue of strategic importance to Israel. According to reports of the two leaders’ meeting on Wednesday, Mr. Netanyahu asked for U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

The move makes sense for both sides. It would provide the Israeli government with a diplomatic win while helping the Trump administration signal to Russia and Iran that the U.S. is charting a new course in Syria.

Israel captured the bulk of the Golan from Syria in the 1967 war and annexed the territory in 1981. The move was met with international condemnation.

For two successive Assad regimes, first Hafiz and now his son Bashar, restoring full Syrian sovereignty over the Golan has been an axiomatic demand. Israel floated partial Golan withdrawals during several rounds of peace talks with Syria over the past two decades, but the Syrians were never satisfied with the deals on offer.

With the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, the facts on the ground have changed. Had Israel ceded the Golan to Syria, Islamic State, al Qaeda or Iran would be sitting on the shores of the Galilee across from the Israeli city of Tiberias.

Mr. Netanyahu and other senior Israeli government officials argue that Syria is destined for partition along sectarian, ethnic and regional lines. And while the retaking of Aleppo shifted the tide of war in favor of the Assad government, some Israelis believe it might be time to acknowledge Israel’s hold on the Golan as permanent.

This position has so far found no traction among the major powers, which still say they want to preserve a unitary Syria. Russia, which intervened militarily to shore up Bashar Assad in the name of Syrian territorial integrity, is chief among them.

A disagreement with Russia over Syria is a long time coming. By recognizing Israel’s sovereignty in the Golan, the Trump administration would signal to Russia that, while Washington may now coordinate with Moscow on activities such as fighting Islamic State, it doesn’t share Russia’s goals for Syria.

Moreover, it would show that the U.S. will take a tougher line on the provision of arms and intelligence to Iran and Hezbollah.

Recognition of Israel’s Golan claims would acknowledge that it needs these highlands to hold off a multitude of asymmetric and conventional military threats from Syria—and whatever comes after the war there. Israel continues to target Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah to prevent them from establishing a base of operations on the Syrian Golan.

Recognizing Israel’s sovereignty in the Golan would also soften the Palestinians’ core demand for a state within the 1967 borders. If an international border can be revised along the Syrian border, the Palestinians will have a harder time presenting the 1949 armistice line along the West Bank as inviolable. This might pave the way for compromise when Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, begins to make his push for Palestinian-Israeli peace.

The move will anger the Europeans and the United Nations, but that storm will pass. Syrian opposition groups will also protest. While some might be tempted to break their tenuous ties with Israel, they understand that the real enemy is Mr. Assad. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
EDUCATION, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Even the SAT Has Become Political The exam should follow dinner etiquette and stay away from controversial topics such as religion, politics and sex. By Trip Apley

By on February 17th, 2017

As more than six million high-school students do every year, I sat down to take the College Board’s SAT exam on Dec. 3, 2016. The test was going well until I reached the essay question, which asks students to assess how an author of an article supports his claims.

The basic concept was easy enough, but I was surprised by the source our essay was supposed to be based on. We were asked to analyze a February 2014 Huffington Post article supporting the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act. The author: New York’s junior senator, Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, who had recently introduced the legislation.

It wouldn’t be appropriate to have an SAT essay question using an article from a conservative blog about reasons to ban late-term abortion. And it is equally inappropriate to force students to focus their attention on a one-sided argument from one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate.

The exam made clear that the “essay should not explain whether you agree with” the article. It should only “explain how the author builds an argument to persuade.” Still, why would a controversial political topic be selected for this evaluation? Why a divisive, partisan issue? We would have had the same educational benefit if the SAT provided an article about banning laptops in school. Maybe the SAT essay should follow the rule of topics that are appropriate for dinner conversation: no religion, politics or sex.

The SAT is an assessment tool and not a mechanism to promote a political agenda to millions of impressionable students. This article might be the only point of view some students ever hear about paid leave, and they are required not only to read it but to restate its central arguments. Educators know that writing down facts is an effective way to retain information. Students should be memorizing algebraic equations, not arguments for progressive labor policy.

Data from the Federal Election Commission show that College Board executives have an overwhelming preference for Democratic candidates. The College Board also spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Maybe it’s just a coincidence that a prominent Democratic senator’s piece was chosen, but I’m not convinced. (A spokeswoman said that “College Board is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization.”) CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
FOREIGN POLICY Comments turned off

A Trump Agenda for Taiwan How to deepen ties without changing the ‘One China’ policy.

By on February 17th, 2017

WRONG! AMERICA SHOULD NOT ACCEPT THE IMPERIALIST CHINESE CLAIM OF “ONE CHINA”.RSK
President Trump’s affirmation of America’s “One China” policy last week avoids one U.S.-China pitfall, but that still leaves the issue of how to build on his landmark December phone call with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. He has several tools to boost ties with Taiwan as a democratic and strategic partner.

The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act commits the U.S. to helping Taiwan defend itself, including the sale of defensive weapons. We hear the Trump team has inherited a roughly $1 billion arms package prepared by the Obama Administration, but it consists mainly of munitions, not new systems such as upgraded fighter jets or unmanned vehicles. This reflects the modest pattern of recent years. From 2011 to 2015 the U.S. even blocked Taiwan from submitting letters of request for weapons.

The new Administration could set arms sales on a more stable course by reinstating annual meetings to discuss the island’s needs. For example, Taipei wants U.S. technology to build submarines, a request U.S. planners will have to weigh against the virtue of offering cheaper weapons that can be fielded more quickly and are less vulnerable to Chinese attack, such as mines and missile systems.
Last year’s Pentagon budget called for flag-grade U.S. officers to begin visiting Taiwan for the first time in decades, an ideal mission for U.S. Pacific Commander Admiral Harry Harris. The law also called for more cooperation in threat analysis, force planning, intelligence and joint training. In 2012 the U.S. considered inviting Taiwan to the multinational Red Flag air combat exercise in Nevada but decided against it for fear of angering Beijing.

Diplomatic exchanges have practical and symbolic value. U.S. Cabinet officials could visit Taiwan, and their Taiwanese counterparts should have dignified and reliable access to officials in Washington. U.S. diplomats could also give Taiwan more help at forums such as the World Health Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization, where China wants to freeze out Taiwanese representatives.

Trade is crucial. Taiwan’s dependence on exports to China threatens its economic and political autonomy, so Taipei should conclude a bilateral deal with the U.S. after a decade of delay. The U.S. can encourage other friendly countries to pursue deals, too, especially Japan and Australia. Japan, like the U.S., faces Taiwanese restrictions on its food exports, and Australia will hesitate to upset Beijing, but the deals would be major advances for democratic cooperation in the Pacific.

The U.S. can also help Taiwan with its shaky energy supply. Taipei is making the mistake of closing its nuclear power plants by 2025 and trying to replace that 18% share of energy production with renewables. It makes more sense to import cheaper and abundant U.S. natural gas, reducing the danger if China ever halts cross-Strait exports of coal.

These initiatives are all consistent with the “One China” policy, though that wouldn’t stop Beijing from protesting. Many inside and outside of China spun Mr. Trump’s policy statement last week as a sign he blinked to get a phone call from Chinese President Xi Jinping. The way to prove that’s not true is to deepen ties systematically, even if quietly, with America’s longtime friends in Taiwan.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Trump Picks Alexander Acosta to Serve as Labor Secretary Acosta would be first Hispanic member of Trump’s Cabinet; nomination comes after Andrew Puzder withdrew By Eric Morath

By on February 17th, 2017

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump’s second choice for labor secretary, veteran federal attorney Alexander Acosta, has a potentially smoother path to confirmation than the controversial fast-food executive who came before him.

Mr. Acosta, who was named Thursday, has already passed muster with senators three times, winning confirmation under President George W. Bush for a position on the National Labor Relations Board, as assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. He has been dean at Florida International University’s law school since 2009.

Mr. Acosta would be the first Hispanic member of Mr. Trump’s cabinet.
The record of public service by the 48-year-old stands in sharp contrast to that of Andy Puzder, the executive who withdrew himself from consideration for the labor post Wednesday. Personal controversies emerged after Mr. Puzder was picked in December, the most glaring of several vetting glitches the Trump administration has faced.

Mr. Acosta’s nomination is “off to a good start,” because he has been previously cleared by the Senate, said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), the chairman of the committee overseeing the confirmation.

“He has an impressive work and academic background,” Mr. Alexander said. “I look forward to exploring his views on how American workers can best adjust to the rapidly changing workplace.”

Mr. Trump announced his choice at a press conference in the White House’s East Room on Thursday. Mr. Acosta wasn’t in attendance, possibly a reflection of the speed with which the president moved less than 24 hours after Mr. Puzder withdrew himself from consideration.

Mr. Trump said Mr. Acosta would be “tremendous” in the job, noting his credential as a Harvard-educated attorney. Mr. Trump said he spoke with Mr. Acosta about the position earlier Thursday.

Many of the president’s nominees have faced contentious fights in the Senate, and several cabinet posts remain vacant nearly a month into Mr. Trump’s term. A less controversial pick in Mr. Acosta could signal the White House is anxious to win speedy approval and begin altering former President Barack Obama’s labor policies. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Don’t Wimp Out on Climate If Trump doesn’t dump the Paris accord, his economic agenda is in jeopardy. By Kimberley A. Strassel

By on February 17th, 2017

President Trump will soon turn his attention to another major campaign promise—rolling back the Obama climate agenda—and according to one quoted administration source his executive orders on that topic will “suck the air out of the room.” That’s good, but only if Team Trump finishes the job by casting into that vacuum the Paris climate accord.

That’s no longer a certainty, which ought to alarm anyone who voted for Mr. Trump in hopes of economic change. Candidate Trump correctly noted that the accord gave “foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use,” and he seemed to understand it risked undermining all his other plans. He unequivocally promised to “cancel” the deal, which the international community rushed to put into effect before the election. The Trump transition even went to work on plans to short-circuit the supposed four-year process for getting out.
That was three months ago—or approximately 93 years in Trump time. Word is that some in the White House are now aggressively pushing a wimpier approach. A pro-Paris contingent claims that quick withdrawal would cause too much international uproar. Some say leaving isn’t even necessary because the accord isn’t “binding.”

Then there’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who in his confirmation hearing said: “I think it’s important that the United States maintain its seat at the table on the conversations around how to address threats of climate change, which do require a global response.” Those are not the words of an official intent on bold action, but of a harassed oil CEO who succumbed years ago to the left’s climate protests.

Here’s the terrible risk of the wimpy approach: If the environmental left has learned anything over the past 20 years, it’s that the judicial branch is full of reliable friends. Republicans don’t share the green agenda, and the Democratic administrations that do are hampered by laws and procedures. But judges get things done. Need a snail added to the endangered species list? Want to shut down a dam? File a lawsuit with a friendly court and get immediate, binding results.

Lawsuits are already proving the main tool of the anti-Trump “resistance.” CNN reported that 11 days into his tenure, Mr. Trump had already been named in 42 new federal lawsuits. John Walke, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, told NPR that his group will litigate any Trump efforts to roll back environmental regulations. He boasted about green groups’ winning track record at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which Mr. Obama and Harry Reid packed with liberal judges.

It is certain that among the lawsuits will be one aimed at making the Paris accord enforceable. The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell says judges could instruct the Environmental Protection Agency to implement the deal. “If President Trump doesn’t withdraw Obama’s signature, and Congress doesn’t challenge it,” he says, “then the environmentalists stand a good chance of getting a court to rule that our Paris commitments are binding and direct EPA to make it happen.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
ISRAEL Comments turned off

Proposed US Amb to Israel Grilled by Senate Foreign Relations Comm Friedman: As Ambassador I will represent this administration’s policies not my own; and I will welcome all Americans, of every political view, when they visit Israel. By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus

By on February 17th, 2017

A US senate confirmation hearing on Thursday for the nominee for ambassador to Israel was unusual both in terms of length and scope, but given the numbers, the nomination appears poised to advance to the full Senate. http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/proposed-us-amb-to-israel-grilled-by-senate-foreign-relations-comm/2017/02/17/

David M. Friedman, President Donald J. Trump’s longtime friend and a Jewish bankruptcy lawyer hailing from Long Island, was on the hot seat before the US Senate Foreign Relations committee. During the nearly three hours long hearing Friedman was interrupted four times by protesters screaming out – some unfurling Palestinian flags – slogans such as “war criminal” and “Palestinian rights.” Senators themselves repeatedly reprimanded Friedman for his use of “intemperate language” in articles written while he was a private citizen.

Friedman comported himself with dignity, rarely getting flustered; he responded to each question fully, if occasionally surprisingly. He made clear that, as U.S. Ambassador to Israel, he will represent President Trump’s policies and positions on the issues and not his own; and that he will proudly welcome all Americans, of every political view, when they visit Israel.

There is one more Republican on the committee than there are Democrats, and the vote is likely to be correspondingly close.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), the ranking Democrat, is Jewish and considered a strong pro-Israel Democrat. Cardin was welcoming, but quickly launched into a rough upbraiding of the nominee on three grounds: his harsh verbal attacks on Democrats, including Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), President Barack Obama and former secretary of state and Senator Hillary Clinton; his perceived lack of support for the Two State Solution; and his apparent support for “settlements.”

Friedman responded, as he did repeatedly to the queries of the other senators who raised the same issues, explaining that he was previously speaking and writing initially as a private citizen and later in the heat of an election campaign, where strong rhetoric is customary.

But Friedman was forced, on several occasions, to not only apologize for his comments but to recant them. He attempted to balance between rejecting views he does hold, and explaining his language in a way the powerful senators were willing to accept. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Tom Udall (D-NM) were particularly pointed on this issue, and “no” votes are likely assured from each of them.

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) appeared satisfied with Friedman’s credentials and contrition – though some in the media falsely criticized Menendez for appearing to accuse Friedman of dual loyalty.

Continue reading →
ISRAEL, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Trump, Netanyahu Seek Common Ground Iran emerges as a central uniting issue. P. David Hornik

By on February 16th, 2017

At Wednesday’s White House press conference for President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, both leaders clearly had a lot on their minds—in addition to the matters at hand.

For Trump it was, of course, the Flynn imbroglio. For Netanyahu there were two things. One involves unfortunate, inane investigations to which he’s being subjected in Israel, which could lead to an indictment. One investigation concerns alleged illicit receipt of gifts—cigars and champagne; the other concerns talks he held with a newspaper publisher—which mentioned possible shady deals that were never, however, acted upon.

In addition, Netanyahu is under heavy pressure from the right wing of his coalition—to renounce the two-state solution, to build settlements. At the press conference Netanyahu, in particular, sounded flustered and awkward at times, glancing for succor at his script, speaking without his usual assurance and aplomb.

On substance the two leaders’ words, too, raised problems at times.

The Palestinian issue appears, unfortunately, to have returned to center stage. It’s unfortunate because it remains an issue no more amenable to a solution that at any time in the past.

“The United States,” Trump told the reporters, “will encourage a peace, and really a great peace deal.” He also said, “I think the Palestinians have to get rid of some of that hate they’re taught from a very young age. They have to acknowledge Israel. They have to do that.”

The problem is that the Palestinians have “had to” do those things—stop hating; acknowledge the legitimacy of a Jewish political entity—since the Palestinian issue first arose almost a century ago.

They have “had to,” but are no closer to doing so today than they were in the 1920s; meanwhile the remedy for an entire generation raised in hate—a reality that Netanyahu, in his flustered way, tried to emphasize—is no closer to being found by any of the putative wizards in the West.

Indeed, neither the president nor the prime minister mentioned Gaza—where a leader who is radical even by Hamas standards has taken the helm; as usual, it was not explained how a solution could be found when the Palestinians west of the Jordan are themselves divided into two mutually antagonistic entities. Trump and Netanyahu’s words about a “regional deal” on the Palestinian issue, involving Arab states along with Israel, likewise fail to take into account intractable Palestinian reality.

Continue reading →
ISRAEL, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Israel has the opportunity to reclaim its nation. Daniel Greenfield

By on February 16th, 2017

Palestine is many things. A Roman name and a Cold War lie. Mostly it’s a justification for killing Jews.

Palestine was an old Saudi-Soviet scam which invented a fake nationality for the Arab clans who had invaded and colonized Israel. This big lie transformed the leftist and Islamist terrorists run by them into the liberators of an imaginary nation. Suddenly the efforts of the Muslim bloc and the Soviet bloc to destroy the Jewish State became an undertaking of sympathetically murderous underdogs.

But the Palestine lie is past its sell by date.

What we think of as “Palestinian” terrorism was a low-level conflict pursued by the Arab Socialist states in between their invasions of Israel. After several lost wars, the terrorism was all that remained. Egypt, Syria and the USSR threw in the towel on actually destroying Israel with tanks and jets, but funding terrorism was cheap and low-risk. And the rewards were disproportionate to the cost.

For less than the price of a single jet fighter, Islamic terrorists could strike deep inside Israel while isolating the Jewish State internationally with demands for “negotiations” and “statehood.”

After the Cold War ended, Russia was low on cash and the PLO’s Muslim sugar daddies were tired of paying for Arafat’s wife’s shoe collection and his keffiyah dry cleaning bills.

The terror group was on its last legs. “Palestine” was a dying delusion that didn’t have much of a future.

That’s when Bill Clinton and the flailing left-wing Israeli Labor Party which, unlike its British counterpart, had failed to adapt to the new economic boom, decided to rescue Arafat and create ”Palestine”.

The resulting terrorist disaster killed thousands, scarred two generations of Israelis, isolated the country and allowed Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and other major cities to come under fire for the first time since the major wars. No matter how often Israeli concessions were met with Islamic terrorism, nothing seemed able to shake loose the two-state solution monkey on Israel’s back. Destroying Israel, instantaneously or incrementally, had always been a small price to pay for maintaining the international order.

Continue reading →
POLITICS Comments turned off

Lawmakers Continue Push to Review Any Russia Sanctions Changes as Investigations Take Shape By Bridget Johnson see note please

By on February 16th, 2017

Senators Huff (Graham) and Puff (McCain) emit enough hot air to warm the planet for decades…..rsk
WASHINGTON — Amid debate on Capitol Hill over what a congressional investigation into possible ties between Russian and the Trump camp should look like, a bipartisan group of House members introduced legislation today requiring lawmakers to sign off on any easing of sanctions.

The Russia Sanctions Review Act is a companion bill to legislation introduced in the upper chamber by Sens. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). President Trump invited Rubio, who has called for former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, to the White House for dinner tonight.

Graham said on Good Morning America that if, as first reported by the New York Times, contacts occurred between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence officials and they’re determined to be “outside the norm, that’s not only big league bad, that’s a game changer.”

“Because if it is true, it is very very disturbing to me, and Russia needs to pay a price when it comes to interfering in our democracy and other democracies, and any Trump person who was working with the Russians in an unacceptable way also needs to pay a price,” said the senator.

The House sanctions review bill was introduced by Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces Chairman Mike Turner (R-Ohio), Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Intelligence Subcommittee on the NSA and Cybersecurity Chairman Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.).

It’s modeled after the legislation that required a congressional vote on the Iran nuclear deal.

“Each day, we learn more about secret dealings that President Trump’s confidants have had with the Russian government,” Smith said. “We don’t yet know the full extent of these interactions, but it would raise serious questions if the administration attempted to ease the sanctions on Russia right now.”

Continue reading →
IMMIGRATION, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

What if Trump treated Muslims as Muslims treat ‘infidels’? By Raymond Ibrahim

By on February 16th, 2017

As American liberals and leftists continue to portray Donald Trump’s immigration ban on seven Muslim nations in the worst possible terms—from “racist” to “Islamophobic”—and as Muslim activists continue to claim “shock and trauma,” a lone Egyptian man has asked some relevant questions that few Muslims care to face.

The man in question is Dr. Ahmed Abu Maher, a researcher and political activist who regularly appears on Arabic language television and who has a long record of exposing Islamic institutions like Al Azhar University for using texts and curriculums that promote terrorism in the name of Islam. On Feb. 6, Maher posted a brief video of himself speaking in Arabic, relevant portions of which I translate below:

Friends, in regards to the presidential victory of Donald Trump, we wanted to ask our brothers—the fuqaha [jurists of Islamic law] and the ulema [scholars of Islam]—a question: If this man who has on more than one occasion announced that he doesn’t want Muslims … were to coerce, through the power of arms, the greater majority of Muslims living in America … to become Christians, or pay jizya, or else he takes over their homes, kills their men and enslaves their women and girls, and sells them on slave markets. If he were to do all this, would he be considered a racist and a terrorist or not? Of course, I’m just hypothesizing, and know that the Bible and its religion do not promote such things, but let’s just assume: Would he be a racist or not? Would he be a terrorist or not? How then [when one considers] that we have in our Islamic jurisprudence, which you teach us, and tell us that all the imams have agreed that the Islamic openings [i.e., conquests] are the way to disseminate Islam? This word “openings” [futuhat]—we must be sensitive to it! The Islamic openings mean swords and killing. The Islamic openings, through which homes, castles, and territories were devastated, these … [are part of] an Islam which you try to make us follow. So I wonder O sheikh, O leader of this or that Islamic center in [New York], would you like to see this done to your wife and daughter? Would you—this or that sheikh—accept that this be done to your children? That your daughter goes to this fighter [as a slave], your son to this fighter, a fifth [of booty] goes to the caliph and so forth? I mean, isn’t this what you refer to as the Sharia of Allah? … So let’s think about things in an effort to discern what’s right and what’s wrong.

To those unacquainted with the subject matter, Maher is referring to history’s Islamic conquests, which in Muslim tradition are referred to in glorious terms, as altruistic “openings” (futuhat) that enabled the light of Islam to shine through to mankind. For centuries, Muslim armies invaded non-Muslim territories, giving the inhabitants three choices: convert to Islam, or else pay jizya (tribute money) and accept third class status as a “humbled” dhimmi (see Koran 9:29), or else face the sword, death, and slavery.

Continue reading →