Displaying the most recent of 90433 posts written by

Ruth King

US-Israel Defense Pact: By Ambassador (Ret.)Yoram Ettinger

A constructive US-Israel defense pact should be based on shared values and shared strategic interests, expanding the two-way-street, win-win US-Israel strategic cooperation.

An effective US-Israel defense pact should enhance Israel’s self-reliance and independence, rather than Israel’s dependence upon the US.

A useful US-Israel defense pact should bolster and leverage Israel’s posture of deterrence at the geographic junction of the Mediterranean-Europe-Africa-Asia, which is a focal point of global terrorism, the proliferation of ballistic and nuclear technologies and unpredictable tectonic military eruptions. Israel’s role is doubly critical at a time when Europe’s posture of deterrence is rapidly collapsing.

A beneficial US-Israel defense pact should further extend the strategic hand of the US – through Israel’s proven capabilities – without additional US aircraft carriers and troops in the Middle East.

A worthwhile US-Israel defense pact should underscore the role of Israel as the most cost-effective, battle-tested laboratory of US defense industries, upgrading US military performance, research and development, production, export and employment. The unique Israeli battle experience has benefitted US military operations by enhancing the formulation of US battle tactics and maneuverability.

France: Macron Sides with Iran’s Mullahs by Guy Millière

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14899/france-macron-iran-mullahs

On September 14, just a few days after former National Security Advisor Ambassador John R. Bolton was comfortably disappeared from the administration, Iran inflicted major damage on a massive oil processing facility in Saudi Arabia,

Macron, in short, has done as much or more than any other European country to favor the Iranian regime — more than Germany, and even more than the European Union itself. He could have chosen to act as a reliable ally of the United States, but the choice he made was a different.

The French officials act and speak as if the Iranian regime was totally honorable, and as if they did not discern the obvious: that the Iranian regime has destructive goals. The nuclear deal did not divert the regime from its goal of building nuclear weapons. The deal, in fact, floated the regime toward precisely that end. The American strategy of applying maximum pressure through economic sanctions seems the only non-military way to pressure this regime to change course.

On August 25, in Biarritz, France, the leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) reunited to discuss world problems. The situation in the Middle East was not on the agenda. French President Emmanuel Macron, the organizer of the summit this year, was about to force it in.

He had decided to invite to the summit Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif. Macron did not warn his guests of Zarif’s attendance until the last minute. His goal, it seems, was to bring about a meeting between the Iranian minister and US President Donald J. Trump. President Trump declined. Zarif had an informal conversation with Macron and some French ministers, then flew back to Tehran. But Macron did not give up. At a press conference the next day, he publicly asked President Trump to meet Iranian leaders as soon as possible.

A Tribute to the Late Václav Havel on the 30-Year Anniversary of the Velvet Revolution by Josef Zbořil

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14900/vaclav-havel-tribute

“The less the state is required to have a say in everyday economic affairs, the better.” — Václav Havel, Summer Meditations, p. 78.

“[A] functioning market economy can never guarantee any genuine social justice. They point out that people have, and always will have, different degrees of industriousness, talent, and, last but not least, luck. Obviously, social justice in the sense of social equality is something the market system cannot, by its very nature, deliver.” — Václav Havel, Summer Meditations, p. 17.

[A]ll of us… face one fundamental task from which all else should follow. That task is one of resisting vigilantly…the power of ideologies… bureaucracy, artificial languages and political slogans. We must resist…. the wellspring of totalitarian thought.” — Václav Havel, Summer Meditations, p. 84.

November 2019 will mark the 30-year anniversary of the Velvet Revolution in former Czechoslovakia, led by the dissident author and playwright, the late Václav Havel (1936-2011), who subsequently became the first president of what became the Czech Republic. Havel’s works reflected the evils of Communism and its inversion and twisting of morality.

In an address to the US Congress in February 1990, Havel said:

“The Communist type of totalitarian system … unintentionally… has given us something positive: a special capacity to look, from time to time, somewhat further than someone who has not undergone this bitter experience. A person who cannot move and live a normal life because he is pinned under a boulder has more time to think about his hopes than someone who is not trapped in this way… We too can offer something to you: our experience and the knowledge that has come from it.”

Democratic Contenders Go Rogue The “derangement” over Trump is a rejection of the two-party system. Democracy means you sometimes need to accept defeat. The new Democrats reject that—and reject basic American values along with it. Karin McQuillan

https://amgreatness.com/2019/09/17/democratic-contenders-go-rogue/

I’ve taken a break this summer, hiking in the mountains instead of paying attention to politics, so watching the last Democratic presidential primary debate was a shock. It was like coming face to face with a bear, but a lot less fun. I like bears. They mostly mind their own business. You cannot say that about Democrats. Plus, I’m always armed with bear spray when I hike.

Still, there’s that moment of fear when you look into the eyes of a massive creature that might decide to go rogue, knock you down, and gnaw off your arm. 

The Democratic Party’s contenders for the 2020 presidential nomination look like a collection of losers, but they are not harmless. They do want to knock us down and take more than an arm. 

Collectively, they represent their voters, a solid 40 percent of the American people. Most of them prefer socialists such as Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) to the conventionally liberal Joe Biden. These two promise an all-out assault on freedom, free enterprise, and our Constitution. 

Warren or Sanders may miss out on the nomination this time around, because they are splitting the leftist vote, but they represent the majority of their party. 

These voters are not going away. Some are Baby Boomer SDS-types like Sanders. Many more are campus neo-fascists like Warren who feel entitled to take over and purify corporate America, seize the wealth of the rich, and tell the rest of us what we may think and do. 

The white elite enjoys the guilt trip of white privilege harped on by Beto O’Rourke. Senator Kamala Harris’s race-baiting of Biden in the first primary debate was so popular among these voters, it temporarily made the U.S. senator from California look like a potential winner. Many Democrats adore identity grievance groups, like Pete Buttigieg, a mediocre Midwestern mayor whose one outstanding attribute is that he is gay. 

The Kavanaugh Clownshow Cavalcade Why can’t the Left’s people come up with any new material? Plus, a couple of items from hither and yon. Scott McKay

https://spectator.org/the-kavanaugh-clownshow-cavalcade/

At some point, we’re going to progress past simply assuming every “exposé” by certain organs among the legacy media, with the increasingly ridiculous New York Times most prominent among them, are mere propaganda, and convert that assumption into conviction or even dogma.

And at that point we will almost assuredly not be wrong.

The furor over the latest round of false accusations against Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh provides a good case in point, because one can’t help but notice that while the Left’s storytellers in Hollywood have largely lost the ability to produce material that isn’t a reboot or a sequel, a similar affliction has taken hold of the storytellers in New York and D.C.

Kavanaugh went through a meat grinder no American citizen should ever endure solely for the purpose of attaining a government job after a host of Democrat hacks on Capitol Hill and in newsrooms concocted a series of unsubstantiated and clearly false allegations that as an adolescent and young adult he engaged in ungentlemanly behavior with females of his acquaintance. As those allegations were vetted it became quite clear that the accusers were liars with a political agenda clearly in mind — namely, to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court for fear of his judicial decision in future abortion cases.

The moral implications of destroying a man’s reputation and psyche in preservation of the ability to destroy other human beings yet unborn never apparently troubled any of these people, something that holds a lesson for the rest of us.

But now there’s a sequel, or perhaps a reboot, of Kavanaugh’s ordeal, thanks to the Times’ pimping, by way of an article over the weekend, a forthcoming book by a pair of its storytellers. In that book is included a “fresh” allegation that Kavanaugh engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with a female acquaintance decades ago.

Specifically, that “friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hands of a female student at a drunken dorm party.”

But on Sunday night, the Times sheepishly ran a correction to the article, noting that the supposed victim declined to be interviewed by the feds who vetted Kavanaugh and friends of hers say she doesn’t remember the incident.

So how did the Times uncover this shocking and Very Seriously True You Guys allegation?

Next for Turkey? Nuclear Weapons! by Burak Bekdil

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14896/turkey-erdogan-nuclear-weapons

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan now wants to make Turkey a rogue state with nuclear weapons.

For several decades, Turkey, being a staunch NATO ally, was viewed as the trusted custodian of some of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. In the early 1960s, the U.S. started stockpiling nuclear warheads at the Turkish military’s four main airbases

Presently, the nuclear warheads in Turkey at Incirlik airbase still remain at the disposal of the U.S. military under a special U.S.-Turkish treaty. That treaty makes Turkey the host of U.S. nuclear weapons. According to the launch protocol, however, both Washington and Ankara need to give consent to any use of the nuclear weapons deployed at Incirlik.

“Countries that oppose Iran’s nuclear weapons should not have nuclear weapons themselves.” — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Hürriyet, 2008.

If Turkey overtly or covertly launched a nuclear weapons program — as Erdoğan apparently wishes — the move could well have a domino effect on the region. Turkey’s regional adversaries would be alarmed, and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Greece might be tempted to launch their own nuclear weapons programs. Erdoğan should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

During the 17 years he has ruled NATO-member Turkey, the country’s Islamist strongman, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has rarely missed an opportunity stealthily to convert Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s secular, pro-Western establishment into a rogue state hostile to Western interests. Erdoğan now wants to make it a rogue state with nuclear weapons.

“They say we can’t have nuclear-tipped missiles, though some have them. This, I can’t accept,” Erdoğan said in a September 4 speech, while conveniently forgetting that Turkey has signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1980. In other words, Turkey’s elected leader publicly declares that he intends to breach an international treaty signed by his country. Turkey is also a signatory to the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which bans all nuclear detonations, for any purpose.

“Jack… Is a Really Kind, Funny Kid… Totally Non-violent.” by Andrew Ash

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14838/jihadi-jack-letts-isis

“He [Jack] is a very humane person and he wanted to do something to help.” Mr Letts said about his son, then adding, “He is a really kind, funny kid who is very gentle. He is totally non-violent.”

As with so much of the mitigating rhetoric that follows the imprisonment of captured British Muslims, Mr Letts’s words sit very much at odds with his son’s previous murderous statements. How mystifying then, that such a peacenik should end up in the bloody killing-fields of Raqqa.

A far bigger problem than what to do with the likes of Jack Letts and Shamima Begum is the possibility of missing British ISIS fighters returning and making their presence felt.

No matter how heartfelt a plea their parents might make on their behalf after they are captured, their children’s real inclinations might best be measured by their actions while they were free to do as they wished.

“This power [to remove citizenship] is one way we can counter the terrorist threat posed by some of the most dangerous individuals and keep our country safe.” — UK Home Office spokesperson, August 2019.

Jack Letts, dubbed “Jihadi Jack”, the British convert to Islam who travelled to Syria in 2014 to join ISIS, has been stripped of his British citizenship. The former dual-national, whose British mother and Canadian father stand by their son, exchanged his picturesque hometown of Oxford for Raqqa, to join the ranks of ISIS. He is currently awaiting his fate in the custody of Kurdish forces.

Letts, who had previously claimed to be an “enemy of Britain” and had posted on social media messages, such as “his threat to behead a group of young British soldiers on Facebook”, now says that he regrets his past misdeeds, and the pain he has caused his parents. “I feel guilty, because I am the reason (my parents) are going through this.” He told a Sky News reporter in June, evidently oblivious to the fact that his actions caused a lot more harm than merely upsetting his parents — both of whom received a suspended prison sentence for — “making money available for a terrorist purpose”.

Kamala Harris’ Presidential Campaign Barely Has a Pulse . . . in California! By Jim Geraghty

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kamala-harris-presidential-campaign-struggling-california-polls/

Since the early days of this presidential primary cycle, there’s been a quiet but intriguing narrative that Kamala Harris was a much stronger candidate than her national polling might suggest. The gist is that while most years, California is just an ATM for Democratic presidential candidates, this cycle the Golden State will vote on Super Tuesday, March 3. The whole process is so much earlier than usual that absentee and early primary ballots will be mailed out the day of the Iowa caucuses.

California has 495 delegates to the Democratic convention, and they are awarded proportionally — almost a tenth of the total 4535 hard delegates. The pro-Harris theory is that while everybody else is scrambling over a share of Iowa’s 49 delegates or New Hampshire’s 33 delegates, Harris can set herself up to win big in her home state and walk away with, say, 250 or so delegates just out of California, setting herself up to be the frontrunner after Super Tuesday.

It’s an intriguing theory, but history is full of candidates who thought they could make their big move after Iowa and New Hampshire and found themselves sputtering on fumes by the time their preferred primary rolled around. In Rudy Giuliani’s 2008 campaign, Florida was supposed to be the firewall, but winning tends to beget more winning, and losing tends to beget more losing. It’s really difficult to become the nominee if you don’t win Iowa or New Hampshire. The only Democrat who’s done it is Bill Clinton in 1992, and that was an oddity because Senator Tom Harkin was a home-state candidate in Iowa (so most observers discounted it), and Clinton was the “comeback kid” who finished second in New Hampshire that year. (Some might also argue that Hillary Clinton’s win in Iowa last cycle was so close it shouldn’t even count.)

David Singer: Netanyahu and Trump Hatch Plan for a Jordan Exclave in West Bank

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s last-minute election pledge to apply Israeli sovereignty in parts of the West Bank could possibly see a large part of the remainder of the West Bank being offered to Jordan as an exclave in direct negotiations between Jordan and Israel.

An exclave is a piece of land that is politically attached to a larger piece but not physically conterminous (having the same borders) with it because of surrounding foreign territory.
Netanyahu’s pledge was clear:

“We will apply sovereignty in the Jordan Valley and the Northern Dead Sea as soon as the next government is established in the next Knesset.  Today I have appointed a working team led by the director-general of my ministry, Ronen Peretz, to formulate an outline for applying sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and the northern Dead Sea”
Netanyahu has now gone even further reportedly saying that if re-elected he plans to annex additional “vital” parts of the West Bank in coordination with the United States.
Trump’s Ambassador in Israel, David Friedman, has already indicated that Trump’s plan will not call for the creation of an additional Arab state between Israel and Jordan based on the 1949 ceasefire lines agreed between those two former enemies.

Friedman declared:

“Under certain circumstances, I think Israel has the right to retain some, but unlikely all, of the West Bank.”
Friedman then declined to say how the United States would respond if Netanyahu moved to annex West Bank land unilaterally – stating:

“We really don’t have a view until we understand how much, on what terms, why does it make sense, why is it good for Israel, why is it good for the region, why does it not create more problems than it solves. These are all things that we’d want to understand, and I don’t want to prejudge.”
Trump seemingly has not yet secured an ironclad guarantee from Jordan or any other Arab interlocutor that they stand ready to negotiate with Israel on Trump’s plan. Releasing it without such a guarantee would constitute political suicide for Trump.

Relax, We’ve Already Seen the Worst of Global Warming Peter Smith

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/relax-weve-

“God forbid we have a real global crisis to deal with. Either we won’t believe it after suffering this present hoax or we’ll think that the equivalent of building some windmills will solve it. What global warming / climate change/ climate emergency (choose your favourite) has shown is that large sections of humankind are susceptible to hysterias promoted by elitists; and that governments are singularly incapable of acting resolutely to combat crises to which they say they subscribe. ”

A friend of mine, Geoff Hogbin (Free to Shop, CIS, 1983), made an incisive throwaway comment some time back which has stuck with me. How would the climate models do he said, sceptically, if they were required to perform across data from the end of the Industrial Revolution; from say the mid-nineteenth century. Of course, there is a data problem. Or I imagine that there is.

The official atmospheric concentration of CO2 measured at Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii goes back only to 1958. HADCRUT temperature data on a global scale goes back to 1850 but you have to ask how consistent are the temperatures recorded in the 1850s with those in the last ten, twenty and fifty years? Satellite temperature data which is probably more reliable than land and ocean-based measures only goes back to the end of 1978.

If it were possible, I would like to see the climate models applied to separate sub-periods, at least back to 1850, to see how they perform. I will guess. They wouldn’t do too well. But my prejudice is showing.

When, four decades ago, I dabbled in econometrics, an important test of a model calculated over a whole data series was to see how it performed using only the first half of the data set and then separately the second half. Was it good for all seasons? Usually it wasn’t. Conclusion: throw it away and begin again.

Almost all of the climate models have over-predicted global temperatures. Or, again, I think that they have. It is easy to find commentaries which say that they have a pretty good record overall, as it is to find the opposite. Hard for us ordinary punters to get a handle on it.