ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

Iran Threatened to Shoot Down U.S. Surveillance Planes U.S. aircraft challenged as they flew over the Strait of Hormuz on routine patrols, U.S. officials said By Gordon Lubold

Posted By on September 14th, 2016

WASHINGTON—Two American surveillance aircraft flying in what U.S. officials said was international airspace near Iran were threatened by Iranian air defense stations over the weekend, and were told by the Iranians to alter their course or face fire.

The two U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft were challenged by Iranian military officials on Sept. 10 as they flew over the Strait of Hormuz on routine patrols, U.S. officials said.

Using ground-to-air communications, officials at the Iranian air defense station told the crews they were flying near Iranian airspace and that if they didn’t change their course quickly they risked being fired upon, according to a spokesman for U.S. Naval Forces Central Command in Bahrain, Cmdr. Bill Urban.

“We will fire Iranian missile,” was one of the transmissions from the ground, he said. Both the American planes were threatened in three separate radio calls, Cmdr. Urban said in a statement.

U.S. aircraft replied that they were coalition aircraft conducting routine operations in international airspace and they continued their mission.

Iranian government spokesman Mohammad-Bagher Nobakht said Tuesday that he wasn’t aware of the incident, but that it was Iran’s policy to protect its borders and warn against any potential intrusion.

“As soon as any flying object wants to come close, warnings are given,” he said.

Officials at Iran’s U.N. mission didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The military said the interaction with the Iranians was considered unprofessional because of the threat the officials made, but it wasn’t considered unsafe because the surface-to-air weapons that would have been used by the Iranians couldn’t have reached either plane, Cmdr. Urban said. CONTINUE AT SITE

BOOKS Comments turned off

Unsettled: A Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territories Eugene Kontorovich

Posted By on September 14th, 2016

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2835908

Abstract:
This Article provides the first comprehensive, global examination of state and international practice bearing on Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides that an “Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” This provision is a staple of legal and diplomatic international discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and serves as the basis for criticism of Israeli settlement policy.

Despite its frequent invocation in the Israeli context, scholars have never examined – or even considered – how the norm has been interpreted and applied in any other occupation context in the post-WWII era. For example, the International Committee of the Red Cross’s (ICRC) influential Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law lists 107 instances of national practice and UN practice applying or interpreting the prohibition, and all but two relate to Israel. Many questions exist about the scope and application of Art. 49(6)’s prohibition on “transfer,” but they have generally been answered on purely theoretically.

To better understand what Art. 49(6) does in fact demand, this Article closely examines its application in all other cases in which it could apply. Many of the settlement enterprises studied in this Article have never been discussed or documented. All of these situations involved the movement of settlers into the occupied territory, in numbers ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands. Indeed, perhaps every prolonged occupation of contiguous habitable territory has resulted in significant settlement activity.

Clear patterns emerge from this systematic study of state practice. Strikingly, the state practice paints a picture that is significantly inconsistent with the prior conventional wisdom concerning Art. 49(6). First, the migration of people into occupied territory is a near-ubiquitous feature of extended belligerent occupations. Second, no occupying power has ever taken any measures to discourage or prevent such settlement activity, nor has any occupying power ever expressed opinio juris suggesting that it is bound to do so. Third, and perhaps most strikingly, in none of these situations have the international community or international organizations described the migration of persons into the occupied territory as a violation of Art. 49(6). Even in the rare cases in which such policies have met with international criticism, it has not been in legal terms. This suggests that the level of direct state involvement in “transfer” required to constitute an Art. 49(6) violation may be significantly greater than previously thought. Finally, neither international political bodies nor the new governments of previously occupied territories have ever embraced the removal of illegally transferred civilian settlers as an appropriate remedy.

The deeper understanding – based on a systematic survey of all available state practice – of the prohibition on settlements should inform legal discussions of the Arab-Israeli- conflict, including potential investigations into such activity by the International Criminal Court. More broadly, the new understanding of Art. 49(6) developed here can also shed significant light on the proper treatment of several ongoing occupations, from Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus, to the Russian occupations of Ukraine and Georgia, whose settlement policies this Article is the first to document.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

At the U.N., Only Israel Is an ‘Occupying Power’ What about Russia in Crimea, Armenia in parts of Azerbaijan, or what Vietnam did in Cambodia? By Eugene Kontorovich and Penny Grunseid

Posted By on September 14th, 2016

Mr. Kontorovich, a professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, heads the international law department at the Kohelet Policy Forum, a think tank where Ms. Grunseid is a researcher.

The United Nations began its annual session this week, and Israel will be prominent on the agenda. Many fear the Security Council may consider a resolution setting definite territorial parameters, and a deadline, for the creation of a Palestinian state.

President Obama has hinted that in the final months of his term, he may reverse the traditional U.S. policy of vetoing such resolutions. The General Assembly, meanwhile, is likely to act as the chorus in this drama, reciting its yearly litany of resolutions criticizing Israel.

If Mr. Obama is seeking to leave his mark on the Israeli-Arab conflict—and outside the negotiated peace process that began in Oslo—there is no worse place to do it than the U.N. New research we have conducted shows that the U.N.’s focus on Israel not only undermines the organization’s legitimacy regarding the Jewish state. It also has apparently made the U.N. blind to the world’s many situations of occupation and settlements.

Our research shows that the U.N. uses an entirely different rhetoric and set of legal concepts when dealing with Israel compared with situations of occupation or settlements world-wide. For example, Israel is referred to as the “Occupying Power” 530 times in General Assembly resolutions. Yet in seven major instances of past or present prolonged military occupation—Indonesia in East Timor, Turkey in northern Cyprus, Russia in areas of Georgia, Morocco in Western Sahara, Vietnam in Cambodia, Armenia in areas of Azerbaijan, and Russia in Ukraine’s Crimea—the number is zero. The U.N. has not called any of these countries an “Occupying Power.” Not even once.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

President Obama to Increase Refugees Admitted to U.S. by 30% Of the 110,000 goal, 40,000 refugees would be from the Near East/South Asia, which includes SyriaBy Miriam Jordan

Posted By on September 14th, 2016

The Obama administration plans to raise the number of refugees admitted to the U.S. to 110,000 in the 2017 fiscal year starting Oct. 1, from 85,000 this fiscal year, according to an annual refugee report to Congress obtained by The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.

President Barack Obama was widely expected to announce an increase in the U.S. commitment ahead of a summit on refugees that he is convening next week during the United Nations General Assembly meeting.

The 110,000 target for 2017 for individuals fleeing persecution and conflict around the world represents a nearly 30% increase over this fiscal year and an almost 60% increase over the 70,000 admitted in 2015.

The last year that the U.S. committed to resettling as many refugees was in 1995, when President Bill Clinton set the ceiling at 112,000.

Each year, the president makes a determination of how many refugees will be admitted into the U.S.

Secretary of State John Kerry presented the new target, outlined in the report to Congress, in a closed session to members of the House and Senate judiciary committees on Tuesday.

As he left the meeting, Mr. Kerry refused to provide details, saying he was “going to wait until the president releases it.”

A State Department official confirmed that Mr. Kerry had held the closed briefing regarding the president’s plan to admit refugees and said the official determination would be issued in coming weeks.

Following terrorist attacks in Paris and the U.S., the resettlement of Muslim refugees, particularly from Syria, has become a contested issue at the state level and in the presidential campaign.

Last year, Republican governors in roughly two dozen states voiced opposition to receiving Syrians, and some states tried to halt resettlement with lawsuits, which they lost.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Chief Obama and the Dakota Pipeline A case study in why the U.S. doesn’t build more infrastructure.

Posted By on September 14th, 2016

Democrats are running for office claiming that the U.S. needs to spend hundreds of billions on infrastructure. If you want to know why they’re not serious, look no further than the Obama Administration’s order halting construction on a sliver of an oil pipeline in North Dakota even after the U.S. won in court.

On Friday federal Judge James Boasberg allowed construction to proceed on the 1,100 Dakota Access pipeline, which aims to deliver a half million barrels of crude a day from the Bakken shale to Pakota, Illinois, for delivery to East Coast and Gulf refineries. Shipping oil via pipeline is less expensive and safer than by rail with fewer carbon emissions.

The Dakota Access would be a boon for the northern Plains, which has suffered more from the rout in oil prices than other regions with better access to markets. The pipeline would make Bakken crude more economical by reducing the shipping cost and supply glut at the source. It was on course to be finished by the end of this year.

But green groups have locked arms with some Native American tribes to block pipeline work around Lake Oahe—a water source for the Standing Rock Sioux—that was permitted this summer by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Nearly half of the clearing and grading for the pipeline is complete including 90% in North Dakota. As Judge Boasberg noted, the pipeline “needs almost no federal permitting of any kind because 99% of its route traverses private land.”

Under the National Historic Preservation Act, federal agencies must follow certain procedures prior to permitting projects that could affect places of cultural or religious significance to Indian tribes. But the law applies only to activities that are subject to federal jurisdiction, not those undertaken on private land.

The company Dakota Access went above and beyond the law’s requirements to mitigate its environmental impact. This meant devising the route to avoid sites on the National Register of Historic Places as well as those identified as potentially eligible for listing. Archaeologists conducted cultural surveys including visual reconnaissance and “shove-test probes” to examine historic sites. The pipeline was modified 140 times in North Dakota alone to avoid potential cultural resources. Around Lake Oahe, the pipeline will run adjacent to the Northern Border Gas Pipeline that was completed in 1982, which reduces the likelihood that construction would harm intact tribal features.

The Army Corps of Engineers bent over backward to consult the Standing Rock Sioux, only to be ignored or rejected. The tribe ignored agency letters requesting comment and belatedly cancelled meetings. “When the Corps timely arrived for the meeting,” the judge noted, “Tribal Chairman David Archambault told them that the conclave had started earlier than planned and had already ended.”

After the Corps issued an environmental assessment of “no significant impact” in July, the Standing Rock sued the Corps for violating the National Historic Preservation Act’s consultation requirements and sought to force a halt to construction around Lake Oahe. CONTINUE AT SITE

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

The Clinton Subpoena Dodge Two witnesses take the Fifth and one fails even to honor a subpoena.

Posted By on September 14th, 2016

The Clinton entourage is known for their faulty memories under oath, but Bryan Pagliano is setting a new standard. The former Clinton aide chose Tuesday to ignore a congressional subpoena.

The House Oversight Committee held a hearing to dig into some of the issues surrounding Hillary Clinton’s private email server. Mr. Pagliano, who worked as an IT specialist for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign and set up the private server in her New York residence in 2009, was issued a subpoena compelling attendance.

Mr. Pagliano’s lawyers replied in a letter to the committee that their client couldn’t be bothered. They said that since he’d previously appeared before a different House committee and asserted his Fifth Amendment rights, any effort to make him appear again “furthers no legislative purpose and is a transparent effort to publicly harass and humiliate our client for unvarnished political purposes.”

Two other witnesses who helped maintain Mrs. Clinton’s server— Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton of Platte River Networks—did show up. But then they took the Fifth as well.

Mr. Pagliano might think his presence serves no purpose, but that’s not his call. Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz is conducting a legitimate inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s failure to preserve federal records while Secretary of State. He’s entitled to put questions to those involved with the server that allowed her to take government work off-grid. Mr. Chaffetz says he is considering what action he will take against the subpoena-dodger, but he says that “if anybody is under any illusion that I’m going to let go of this and just let it sail off into the sunset, they are very ill-advised.”

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Clinton’s Stealthy Single-Payer Gambit The ‘public option’ could be implemented around the country—without congressional approval. By Scott Gottlieb

Posted By on September 14th, 2016

Dr. Gottlieb is a physician and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He consults with and invests in health-care companies.
It looks like 2017 will be ObamaCare’s worst year yet. The three major insurers, along with many smaller plans, are largely exiting the health-insurance exchanges, leaving more than half of U.S. counties with only one or two health-plan choices, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Nearly 36% of ObamaCare regions may have only one participating insurance carrier offering plans for 2017, according to health-care analytics firm Avalere Health. Data from analysts at Barclays and Credit Suisse project that health-insurance premiums are expected to rise at least 24% in 2017.

To rescue President Obama’s health-care law, Hillary Clinton has proposed resurrecting the “public option.” This failed idea—a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers—can’t save ObamaCare. But introducing it across the country would move the U.S. much closer to the single-payer system progressives have always longed for.

Mrs. Clinton positions the states as vehicles for the public option, and this isn’t because she discovered a late-in-life appreciation for federalism. Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act, a little-known provision, allows states to renounce almost all of ObamaCare’s dictates. That includes the law’s politically sacred rules governing the medical benefits consumers are promised and the subsidy structure that helps pay for them. States only need to develop alternative schemes that can achieve the same level of similarly priced coverage that they would attain under ordinary ObamaCare.

In 2011 Vermont tried to use this waiver process to introduce a public option, only to abandon it three years later when it became clear that the scheme would yield skyrocketing taxes on small businesses. Minnesota, Maine and Rhode Island are proposing variations of this scheme for implementation after 2017. Maine’s proposed law boasts of its intent to use “federal funds to the maximum extent allowable under federal law.” Colorado is using the 1332 waiver to pursue its own single payer through an initiative on the ballot this November.

The real juice is the funding. To pay for these schemes, the 1332 waivers let states pocket the aggregate subsidies—including premium tax credits, cost-sharing subsidies, and small-business tax credits—that they would otherwise receive under ObamaCare. This federal slush fund could give states billions of dollars annually to subsidize their own publicly run health plan.

The process gives the executive branch broad authority to coax or even coerce states to pursue the creation of these public options—without congressional consent. ObamaCare requires that any new scheme be “deficit neutral” relative to the cost of the law. So long as the new public option won’t add to ObamaCare’s costs, the state can use the law’s subsidies to pay for government-run plans. The waivers give states ample ability to use savings claimed by setting price controls on medical care as a way to meet the budget goals.

Federal regulators would approve new public options based on White House budget office estimates of the program’s cost and impact on a state’s existing insurance market. The Obama administration has abused this broad discretion before: Officials manipulated “budget neutrality” by allowing states like Arkansas to expand their Medicaid programs under ObamaCare. CONTINUE AT SITE

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Israel and the F-35 By Stephen Bryen and Rachel Ehrenfeld

Posted By on September 14th, 2016

Like it or not, the increasingly aggressive Iranian posture toward Israel suggests that sooner or later their conflict will develop into a ground and air war. Actions by Iran and its surrogates in the area of the Golan Heights already caused some Israeli land and retaliatory air moves, and more provocations could set off broader fighting. Israel has little choice but to deter the Iranian and Syria armies, and Hezbollah, from creating a security nightmare.

Iran has around 265 front line combat fighter aircraft. These consist of American F-14’s, F-4’s, F-5’s and 30 or more Hesa Saegeh locally made aircraft based on the F-5; Russian MIG 29’s; French Mirage F-1s, and Chinese F-7 Chengdu interceptors. The F-7s and F-5s are not a significant factor of any kind today. The F-14s and F-4s are old, but very capable, as are the Mirage and MiG planes. The Iranian F-4s have been upgraded and have new, modern radars and avionics from China. The F-4s also have the new Qader cruise missile which may also be usable on the other planes. The Hesa Saegeh F-5 knock off has engines that could have been smuggled into Iran from outside, no one is sure.

Of all these planes the most lethal is the F-14 because it carries Phoenix missiles. The Phoenix missile was the first true beyond visual range air to air missile with a range exceeding 100 miles. Such missiles were delivered to Iran under the Shah. But to assume they are not operational today would be a mistake because, in all likelihood, the Russians and Chinese have had their hands all over them. Can the Israelis knock such an improved Phoenix out? Possibly, if they use jamming. A better strategy would be to destroy the F-14s before they can do any damage. But this would depend on the quality of Iran’s air defenses, which have been improved lately by S-300 batteries that were delivered by Russia, and whether the Iranians can field an aircraft that can compete with Israel’s F-15s and F-16s.

Can the Israelis knock such an improved Phoenix out? Possibly, if they use jamming. A better strategy would be to destroy the F-14s before they can do any damage. But this would depend on the quality of Iran’s air defenses, which have been improved lately by S-300 batteries that were delivered by Russia, and whether the Iranians can field an aircraft that can compete with Israel’s F-15s and F-16s.

Furthermore, the possibility of a Russian sale of an advanced 4th generation plus fighter, like the Su-35 to Iran, could introduce a major problem for Israel, a problem that would not be solved by the F-35, which has such serious limitations and needs so many fixes that there is doubt it could be ever ready for combat. Because the F-35 cannot dogfight, the Su-35 has the key advantage especially in the role of territorial defense.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

MY SAY: “DEPLORABLE” IS WHEN LIARS WITHHOLD CRITICAL INFORMATION

Posted By on September 13th, 2016

Hillary and Bill Clinton have a remarkable history of friends who are willing to lie, obstruct, and withhold information that would expose them. Webb Hubbell, Hillary Clinton’s former law partner and former associate attorney general in the Clinton Justice Department, went to jail and still refused to give evidence against her.

Bernard Nussbaum, a prominent lawyer, then White House Counsel, initially agreed to allow the Department of Justice to review the documents in Vince Foster’s office for evidence that might shed light on the cause of his death. That evening and the next morning, Nussbaum; Hillary Clinton; Susan Thomases, her personal counsel; and Maggie Williams, her chief of staff exchanged 10 separate phones calls. That morning, according to the DOJ employees, Nussbaum changed his mind and refused to allow the DOJ prosecutors to review the documents; instead, he reviewed them himself and segregated several as “personal” to the Clintons. Thomases and Williams just couldn’t remember a thing when subpoenaed.

Federal officials complained that White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum thwarted a proper search of Foster’s office and files. Nussbaum was forced to resign.

Susan McDougal served prison time as a result of the Whitewater controversy for failure to answer “three questions” for a grand jury about whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial. McDougal received a full presidential pardon from outgoing President Clinton in the final hours of his presidency in 2001.

More recently, Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, did not dispute Bill Clinton’s outrageous claim that during a “serendipitous” meeting on an airplane, Lynch and Clinton did not discuss anything other than “grandchildren.” FBI director Comey risked a sterling reputation to spare Hillary Clinton any legal consequences for the e-mail and classified information scandal.

Now we have the case of Hillary’s health and the most recent syncope episode on Sunday September 11, 2016.

Why is critical information on Hillary’s health being withheld from the public? And by whom?

Her minions are now flooding the news with pictures of Hillary emerging from her daughter’s home…smiling, chatting and repeating: “I feel fine…such a lovely day in New York.”

Questions remain:

When she fainted and was lifted into the van, was she unconscious?

Was she carried up to her daughter’s home? There are no pictures of her entering her daughter’s home.

Who went inside with her?

What medicine or medicines were administered in her daughter’s home?

If her doctor, a reputable internist named Dr. Lisa Bardack, diagnosed pneumonia the Friday before, why was Hillary still planning a tour of the West, and why did she attend the ceremony at Ground Zero? Any doctor would have proscribed such activities in a senior with pneumonia.

What medications is she taking for “allergies” and pneumonia?

Are both lungs affected? Is she contagious? This is pertinent, since she exchanged hugs and kisses with so many dignitaries.

Is she taking medications other than hormones for hypothyroidism and Coumadin?

What accounts for her strange episodes of documented strange head, eyes, and open-mouth grimaces?

What were her symptoms when she was hospitalized for a blood clot in the brain in December 2012, when her daughter was so visibly shaken? Why did initial reports omit the fact that she had had a previous episode in 1988, after developing a clot behind her right knee? Does she have a medical predisposition to clots? Would that affect her travel and schedule?

Furthermore, a 48-hour stay in the hospital for diagnosis and treatment seems very short for such a complex condition.

Will we ever know? Or will doctors or members of her inner circle succeed in hiding, obfuscating, deleting facts, and lying to keep her candidacy viable?

BOOKS Comments turned off

Benjamin Netanyahu and the ‘Otherwise Enlightened’ Someone finally calls out the international community’s “no Jews” policy for “Palestine.” Caroline Glick

Posted By on September 13th, 2016

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

Sometimes, nothing is more infuriating than the truth.

On Friday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu infuriated the Obama administration when he told the truth about the nature of the internationally supported Palestinian demand that Israel must transfer control over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to the Palestinians Jew-free.

In a video address posted to his Facebook page at around dawn Washington time, Netanyahu said, “The Palestinian leadership… demands a Palestinians state with one precondition: No Jews.

“There’s a phrase for that. It’s called ‘ethnic cleansing.’ And this demand is outrageous.”

Netanyahu then turned his fire on the so-called international community that supports this bigoted demand.

“It’s even more outrageous that the world doesn’t find this outrageous,” he said, adding, “Some otherwise enlightened countries even promote this outrage.”

Later that day, Associated Press correspondent Matt Lee asked US State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau what the administration thought of Netanyahu’s statement.

Apparently turning to a prepared text, Trudeau declaimed robotically and emphatically, “We obviously strongly disagree with the characterization that those who oppose settlement activity or view it as an obstacle to peace are somehow calling for ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank.

“We believe that using that type of terminology is inappropriate and unhelpful….

We share the view of every past US administration and the strong consensus of the international community that ongoing settlement activity is an obstacle to peace. We continue to call on both sides to demonstrate with actions and policies a genuine commitment to the two-state solution.”

The only thing missing from Trudeau’s response was an explanation of why Netanyahu was wrong. She didn’t explain, nor was she asked, how the US’s opposition to Israel’s respect for Jewish Israelis’ property rights in these areas squares with her denial that its policy supports ethnic cleansing.

To make this point a bit more clearly, here are a few questions that Trudeau was neither asked nor explained on her own, but whose answers are self-evident from the administration’s apoplectic response to every move by Israel to permit Jews to lawfully build homes in Judea, Samaria and unified Jerusalem.

• In the US government’s view, does Israel have the right to pass laws or ordinances for land use in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria? If not, why not? • And if you do respect Israel’s right to issue rules on land use, why do you oppose the destruction of illegally built structures in Susiya? Why do you oppose the legal purchase of land by Jews in the so-called outposts? • Under what circumstances is it legal for Jews to buy land beyond the 1949 armistice lines in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria? • Under what circumstances is it legal for Jews to build homes for themselves in these areas? Through its consistently stated and deliberately applied policy of totally rejecting all rights of Jewish Israelis to live and build in these areas, from its first days in office, the Obama administration has made clear that it rejects the civil rights of Jews as Jews in these areas and seeks the complete negation of their rights through mass expulsion, property seizure and destruction, that is, through ethnic cleansing.