Displaying the most recent of 90914 posts written by

Ruth King

The Bob Newhart Peace Plan By Kevin D. Williamson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/oslo-accords-anniversary-israel-palestinian-conflict/

The Palestinians need to stop making war before their conflict with Israel can be resolved.

Jay Nordlinger likes to tell a story about “B-1 Bob” Dornan, the Republican congressman from California. He was a famously tough guy, an Air Force captain who survived two parachute bailouts in the Fifties and registered black voters in Mississippi in the Sixties. He said the hardest thing he ever did was quit smoking. But it’s the easiest thing in the world to do: You just stop it. Drinking, drugs, eating junk food — giving any of those up is a purely negative achievement. You just don’t do it anymore. Simple. “ Simple as a flower, and that’s a complicated thing.”

This week marks 25 years since the Rose Garden ceremony celebrating the signing of the Oslo Accords. You’ll remember the famous picture of a beaming President Bill Clinton kind of shoving PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat and Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin toward each other to shake hands.

Like many of the purported victories of the Clinton administration, that moment of triumph has not aged very well. As Herb Keinon writes in the Jerusalem Post:

The longed-for peace still tarries, the New Middle East of Shimon Peres, one of the architects and leading proponent of the Oslo Accords, never emerged. In fact, some argue that the handshake 25 years ago did not improve the chances of peace between Arabs and Israelis, but actually — because it raised and then dashed hopes — pushed them farther away. A quarter-century since the formal kickoff of the Oslo process, peace between the two sides has rarely felt more distant.

A peace plan isn’t peace. Peace negotiations aren’t peace. Nobel Peace Prizes aren’t peace, either, though they were handed out after Oslo.

Peace is peace.

Islam and the Culling Foot-Bridge By Amil Imani

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/09/islam_and_the_culling_footbridge.html

Islam operates by two powerful schemes: reward and punishment. It mesmerizes the believer by its encyclopedic descriptions of Allah’s lush paradise that awaits the worthy faithful. For the kefir and a not-so-true Muslim, the destination is Allah’s dreadful hell.

Muslim clergy tirelessly preach about these two locations with great success. Fear of hell, for some, even out-muscles the attractions of paradise and works wonders in keeping the flock servile to the parasitic clergy.

A powerful, well honed scheme involves pol-e As-Sirāt (the footbridge of the path). The kefirs, after they die, do not even get a chance to see if they can cross this footbridge; they go directly to Allah’s hell. Yet all Muslims approach the footbridge. The problem is in crossing it. The preachers describe at great length how difficult it is to cross this bridge over the gorge of hell to the other side, where paradise is located.

A great majority of blindly faithful Muslims are either illiterate or semi-literate. These people tend to take everything the charlatan preachers say as literal truth; many panic with fear and beg the preachers to tell them what they need do to cross that dreadful footbridge. They become ripe for the picking. The preachers, well trained con artists that they are, burden these simpletons with all kinds of well rehearsed fabricated demands to keep the flock in their pen. The preachers say, for instance, that they must do this and they must do that to earn the good graces of Allah. And when they die, Allah will commission two angels to hold them on both sides and safely transport them over the bridge. Wayward Muslims, on the other hand, are all on their own and most likely will fall into the dreadful hell with their very first steps.

When asked about the mercy of Allah, since he is billed as the most merciful, can they count on his mercy to send them the helpful angel if they somehow, themselves, fail to live completely up to the standards of the faith? The preachers have a pet response to that, too. Allah’s mercy has limits. You had best not to count on it too much. He has already shown you his abundance of mercy by sending you his beloved messenger Muhammad. Allah guides, and it is your duty to follow. And if you are confused or in doubt about things, just go to the preachers. They will clarify things for you and set you on the straight path. The crafty preachers claim that they have spent their lives learning the intricacies of the faith, and it is their humble task to serve the believers.

The European Union Would Love to Control Your Internet Use By Janet Levy

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/09/the_european_union_would_love_to_control_your_internet_use.html

Imagine an internet in which users can’t freely blog, parody, share material, or remix content – an online experience in which linking, code-sharing, and the unfettered use of art and images would be nearly impossible due to legal limitations. Unfortunately, this scenario – a restrictive internet culture – may soon be a reality in the European Union with the recent passage of the European Unions Copyright Directive. This new E.U. decree, which includes provisions for filtering and surveillance, could have a chilling effect on internet creativity and innovation, potentially increase censorship, and impose new market barriers for businesses worldwide.

The new regulations were originally proposed two years ago as part of the E.U.’s Digital Single Market policy that applies to 28 E.U. member-states and the four non-E.U. states of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. Essentially, it could have a global impact on non-E.U. countries across the world similar to the effect of the E.U.’s 2016 E.U.-wide data protection rules created under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR took effect in May this year and standardized data protection laws and set guidelines on controlling personally identifiable data. The Copyright Directive imposes requirements that will change the way netizens interface with online content by imposing mandatory upload filtering, a link tax, and certain prohibitions on user-generated content in public spaces. It requires online platforms to implement privacy-killing filtering systems that will ban content usage under the justification of copyright protections. Platforms will be held liable for copyright infringement and fines that could threaten their economic viability. To add to the confusion, the directive is just that, a suggestion, so each E.U. and non-E.U. party must create its own interpretation of the laws. The result could be that all 28 E.U. member-states have their own separate definition of what part of a link can be used and copyrighted.

As part of the proposed Copyright Directive, bots, applications that run automated tasks, will act as censors and arbitrarily decide what content can be accessed and shared or even deleted without the consent of the intended user. No technology will exist to distinguish between the outright copying of material and various forms of commentary. Under the E.U. directive, revenue streams could be claimed by publishers for small amounts of information, even tables, headlines, or images. Uploading of research articles from online repositories will be forbidden, and non-profit education services and universities will have to obtain copyright licenses and install filters. All data, research papers, and articles will exist behind a virtual paywall. Articles for submission will need to be scanned for potential copyright violations. Exemptions are proposed for research carried out “in the public interest,” but how that will be defined and who will be making those decisions are uncertain. Exemptions could easily be decided along political lines, amounting to a form of point-of-view censorship.

Trump Pulls Back the Shroud on South Africa By Steve Apfel

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/09/trump_pulls_back_the_shroud_on_south_africa.html

Loathe or admire the apprentice who became the president, all owe a debt to Donald Trump. Upon telling his secretary of state to home in on fears that Mandela’s legatees had declared open season on white farmers and farmland, the habituated tweeter provoked his opposite number to defend what, to many, seems gutter politics.

If a road to Hell is paved with good intentions, another road going to the same venue is paved with bad intentions. It’s the road South Africa is on. Manipulators of a penniless mass may drum into them having been dealt a derisory thin edge of the wedge. Do the poor want to go on being pushed around and exploited? Are they content with being homeless and landless? Do they want the white Boers to harvest their lavish gift, the farmlands God meant indigenous people to have and to hold? Do they like being knocked over with a sneeze, or do they want to command respect? Victims may take back what is theirs by right.

The rabble-rousers are half-correct, which is a problem. Under colonial Britain and then Apartheid, South African blacks were displaced; whites did fill the gap. Agriculture thrived, and the Boer farmer lived off the lap of the land. The constitution of 1996 allowed for restitution. Land taken, unjustly by the whites, would be returned. There’d be a more equitable distribution of it in the future. Promises failed to happen, or nowhere near fast enough for a foot-stomping black majority. The Boer villain took the blame; so did black leaders (e.g., the godly Mandela on his plinth) for wanting to reconcile with the privileged whites. Again the instigators of violence make half a case. Land reform was sold to blacks as reward for voting the ANC and allies into the seats of power. Politics what it is, the lining of pockets came first, keeping promises a distant third or fourth or fifth.

But the instigators of trouble and strife are also half-wrong, and that makes another problem. A poll by the South African Institute of Race Relations found that a snippet, a mere 1% of black people see “speeding up land reform” as a top priority. The other 99% don’t want to be farmers. Even the rural poor prefer to live and work and own some real estate in the cities.

About That Bible Museum in Washington By Alex Joffe see note please

This past spring a friend and I spent almost a full day at the museum. It is a noble undertaking, meticulously respectful of all faiths with dioramas, recreations of biblical villages and thousands of displayed texts………rsk

http://www.asor.org/anetoday/2018/09/About-That-Museum-Washington

On a quiet street corner two blocks south of the National Mall and just above the busy highway that is Virginia Avenue is the latest addition to Washington’s cultural life, the Museum of the Bible. But unlike the Smithsonian Institution, sprawled out across the Mall, this new museum is a private venture, a labor of love by the Green family of Oklahoma City, they of Hobby Lobby fame. From the outside, the building looks like a forgotten branch of the Bureau of Printing and Engraving. Inside is a state of the art museum, spread over seven floors and hundreds of thousands of square feet. But the Museum of the Bible is more than that; it is a unique performance space that operates on multiple layers to present an American Protestant perspective on the Bible, God, and History.

Some readers are doubtless ready to stop right here. That would be a mistake, not only because they’d miss some witty insights, but because the museum itself is a serious place that deserves consideration and respect, if only because of the questions it poses for us about the Bible. Who has the right to interpret the Bible? The museum makes it clear that, following the Protestant tradition, all people do. But using what tools? That’s where things get complicated.

Entering the museum through its main door, flanked by tablet-like engravings, visitors are thrust into a marble clad interior space that feels like the corporate headquarters of a global pharmaceutical firm.

Giant touch screens and video displays hint at what is to come, as do the moveable pillars of the Philistine temple in the children’s room, ‘Courageous Pages,’ which junior Samsons can push apart. Another important hint is the Vatican Museum room filled with manuscripts on loan; the museum has been relentless and successful in developing partnerships with other institutions around the world. On the one hand the strategy vastly expands the scope of the displays. On the other, this is a way for an upstart museum to generate respectability and put itself on the map.

Respectability is an important issue, both for the museum and for its patrons. Any new cultural institution in Washington needs to establish itself, and in a city dedicated to the Seven Deadly Sins and then some, a Museum of the Bible is at a disadvantage. So too is the Green family, which founded its first arts and crafts store in 1972. The chain now employs 32,000 people in 800 stores, and is famous for stocking over 70,000 different crafting and home decor items. It is also famous for winning its case in the Supreme Court, in which it argued that as a closely held corporation with religious objections, it did not have to provide contraceptive coverage to employees as otherwise mandated by the Affordable Care Act.

Oslo at 25: A Personal View By Douglas Feith

https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/oslo-accords-douglas-feith/

Perhaps the most important misperception about Oslo is that it is – or was – a peace process, a two-sided affair, a matter of give-and-take in which each side’s promises depended on fulfillment of the other’s promises. My view, as a witness to some of the relevant history, is that it was a kind of unilateral Israeli withdrawal.

Oslo pretended to be a peace process. Israeli officials knew that Oslo lacked mutuality, but they misled the public about the relationship of withdrawal to peace.

The Rabin government’s top officials knew their priorities. Peace was important, and trading land for peace might be useful. But most important of all was reducing the burdens of the occupation. Even if Israel didn’t have the power to win peace from the Palestinians, it had the power to quit the territories on its own.

The idea of unilateral withdrawal had some appeal in Israel long before the first Oslo agreement. Years later, support in Israel for unilateral withdrawal had grown, even though (or maybe because) Oslo had been widely discredited by the terrorism that the Palestinian Authority incited and often perpetrated. Unlike the Oslo redeployments, Israel’s 2005 departure from Gaza was nakedly unilateral; it made no pretense of being a land-for-peace deal.

I served as a low-ranking Middle East specialist at the White House in the Reagan administration and much later as a senior Defense Department official in the George W. Bush administration. I will share a few Oslo-related stories from both of those periods.

Early on I saw that Oslo was more about Israeli withdrawal than peace. I was attuned to this point because of something that happened long before the famous September 1993 Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House south lawn.

Twelve years before, during the first year of the Reagan administration, I was a National Security Council staff member. Yossi Beilin – at the time an aide to Shimon Peres, who was Opposition leader – came to Washington as the guest of the US Information Agency as part of a program to cultivate friendly relations with promising young foreign leaders. Beilin’s itinerary included a meeting at the White House and I was assigned to talk with him.

Mr. Peres had recently published an article in Foreign Affairs that Beilin was generally assumed to have written, so I asked him about it. The article made the well-known argument that, if Israel continued to hold the territories, the state could not survive as both Jewish and democratic. But, the article said, Israel should withdraw from the territories only if it received reliable Arab peace pledges.

Rift Between Police, Feds Allowed New Mexico Terror Compound To Fester The compound was under surveillance from both local and federal law enforcement, but it took several months for law enforcement to intervene despite local reports. By Kyle Shideler

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/14/rift-police-feds-allowed-new-mexico-terror-compound-fester/

Questions keep coming about how the U.S. justice system responded to a New Mexico compound that housed five alleged would-be jihadists and 11 reportedly malnourished children along with the remains of a twelfth child who died on the compound.

A federal grand jury recently indicted the five alleged jihadists on weapons and conspiracy charges, alleging the group created their compound in the desert outside Taos, New Mexico as a training camp and firing range to facilitate a “Common plan to prepare for violent attacks government, military, educational and financial institutions” and sought to “engage in jihad and form an army of jihad” according to the federal indictment published by the Department of Justice on September 11.

The five suspects—Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, Lucas Morten, Subhanah Wahhaj, Hujrah Wahhaj, and Jany Leveille—had previously faced state charges of child abuse, but the charges floundered in court after a New Mexico judge dismissed charges against all five suspects when state prosecutors missed a 10-day deadline for a preliminary hearing. Prosecutors argued extenuating circumstances but were rebuffed.

The federal charges echo information first laid out in the state prosecutors’ motion urging the judge in the case to reconsider the judge’s dismissal of bail, given evidence that the suspects had discussed targeted attacks against “corrupt institutions,” including schools and an Atlanta-area hospital. Suspects reportedly had repeatedly discussed a willingness to fight and kill law enforcement, and to die as “martyrs.” Prosecutors cited testimony from children inside the camp saying they were being trained to conduct school shootings or other attacks.

The five suspects were arrested after local police launched a raid to respond to reports of child abuse from inside the camp, only to discover a shooting range, multiple weapons, and documents describing a potential terrorist attack, including a document titled “Phases of a Terrorist Attack.”

Azerbaijan and Israel: a Unique Partnership & Friendship By Nurit Greenger –

https://newsblaze.com/thoughts/opinions/azerbaijan

I was not part of this noteworthy recent visit to Azerbaijan by Mr. Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s Defense Minister, but since I have visited the Republic of Azerbaijan and will be there soon again, I would like to put my two cents of thoughts into this historical visit.

Reasons for my visits to this majority Muslim population country: the Azerbaijanis are very special people and the country, independent since 1991, reminds me of where Israel was not too long ago.

Born in Israel and today a USA citizen I see the Republic of Azerbaijan a country to pay attention to this upcoming influential regional democracy.

On September 13, 2018, Colonel General Zakir Hasanov, the Minister of Defense of the Republic of Azerbaijan, greeted Mr. Avigdor Lieberman, Israel Defense Minister and his large delegation who arrived in Azerbaijan to discuss the prospects of Azerbaijan-Israel economic, military, cultural, and tourism cooperation.

The Fear in Bob Woodward’s Soul By Diana West

http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/3775/The-Fear-in-Bob-Woodwards-Soul.aspx

In 2012, Politico, of all outlets, listed six big disputed reports from Bob Woodward.

(1) The potted plant to signal “Deep Throat”

(2) CIA Director William Casey’s deathbed scene

(3) Tenet’s WMD “slam dunk” quote

(4) Justice Brennan voting against conscience to curry favor

(5) Reagan recovery scene

(6) John Belushi portrayal in “Wired”

Catch up on them here.

What made these examples of disputed Woodward reporting newsworthy was the stunning 2012 revelation in New York Magazine, as Politico put it, that “legendary Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee once expressed `fear in my soul’ that Bob Woodward had embellished elements of his reporting in the Watergate scandal.”

Leaving readers mouths agape, Politico moves on to its own list.

This does not begin to do the Bradlee story justice. In “The Red Flag in the Flowerpot: Four decades after Watergate, there’s something that still nags at Ben Bradlee about Deep Throat,” Jeff Himmelman, author of the Bradlee biography, Yours in Truth (ironic), not only reports on finding this comment in Bradlee’s papers — which Bradlee did not publish in his own memoirs — but, more amazingly, the very strange effect it had on Woodward at the prospect of publication.

Who What When Where Woodward By Diana West

http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/3776/Who-What-When-Where-Woodward.aspx

I, myself, had one unlikely brush with Bob Woodward. It happened in the early spring of 2013, when, while squiring my Danish friend and then-editor Lars Hedegaard around town on a visit of his to D.C., I found myself sitting across a Washington dinner table from Woodward.

Recently, Lars had miraculously survived an assassination attempt outside his home in a suburb of Copenhagen and was enjoying, if that’s the word, an intense burst of interest in his affairs in new quarters. In some cases, I couldn’t decide whether the interest was genuine or rubber-necking.

The dinner Lars was invited to was at Michael and Barbara Ledeen’s house. I had met Michael before but did not know the other guests, and was simply there as Lars’ companion. When the party had assembled, it included, besides the Ledeens, Lars and me, a daughter of the Ledeen’s (the one who worked with or would work with Gen. Flynn in Afghanistan, I am guessing), Richard Perle, Ron and Allis Radosh (I know, I know), and Bob Woodward.

There was something surreal about suddenly and unexpectedly being within pass-the-butter range of Historic Media Figure Woodward, which I tried to express in a syndicated column I wrote after the evening. It was Lars’ night — he also wanted to raise the profile of his newspaper, Dispatch International — but as concern with his personal near-death experience did not seem to extend too deeply into the Islamic war for Europe, abetted by European elites (and covered by Dispatch International), the conservation soon flowed back into channels familiar from any “media roundtable.”

But I wanted to ask a question or two that never make it onto the networks or cable. For starters, I really wanted to ask Woodward the Nixon-Slayer about Obama’s problematic (read: fraudlulent) identity docs. Had the Intrepid One ever actually examined them for himself?