RUTHFULLY YOURS

There are many things I do not like about the Environmental Protection Agency, but what angers me most are the lies that stream forth from it to justify programs that have no basis in fact or science and which threaten the economy.

Currently, its “Clean Power” plan is generating its latest and most duplicitous Administer, Gina McCarthy, to go around saying that it will not be costly, nor cost jobs. “Clean Power” is the name given to the EPA policy to reduce overall U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is requiring each state to cut its emissions by varying amounts using a baseline established by the EPA.

Simply said, there is no need whatever to reduce CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide is not “a pollutant” as the EPA claims. It is, along with oxygen for all living creatures, vital to the growth of all vegetation. The more CO2 the better crops yields will occur, healthier forests, and greener lawns. From a purely scientific point of view, it is absurd to reduce emissions.

For a number of years, China’s military has increased its military spending by higher annual percentages than either the USA or the USSR at the height of the Cold War. It now must be considered a military and economic superpower with aggressive tendencies that threaten not only its neighbors but the interests of peace throughout the globe.

Beijing’s forces have nearly twice the manpower of the U.S. (2,285,000 vs. 1,429,995). It will have more ships than the U.S. navy by 2020 (351 vs. 250) and more tanks than the U.S. (9,000 vs. 8,725.) The U.S. has a two to one lead in aircraft. However, that lead in quality and quantity may shrink rapidly as budget cuts in the U.S. and continued double digit increases in the PLA budget come to fruition.

When one of our governments – state or federal — takes a life it does so pursuant to the Constitution as filtered by its statutory authority. But the debate on whether the death penalty is a remedy society should ever impose will never end.

Everyone in the media seem to assume that our federal government knows what it’s doing and applies its authorities exactly as they’re supposed to be applied, but that’s not at all clear. When the media consider – and too infrequently condemn — other nations’ decisions on the death penalty, they seem to forget our standards entirely and judge those actions on grounds that are entirely political. Consider the cases of ISIS commander Abu Sayyaf, Boston Marathon bomber Dzokar Tsarnaev and former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi.

Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian President Vladimir Putin met recently in what they euphemistically described as a kumbaya moment. Presumably there was a pledge to work together to resolve crises in Syria and the Ukraine, Secretary Kerry said neither side was seeking a “major breakthrough,” but instead they seek to keep “communications open,” this is “diplospeak” for resolution isn’t in the cards.

Before meeting with Kerry, Putin called for a continued buildup of Russian forces. He also contends that Russia should “retool its military industry to replace foreign suppliers…” If there was concession on Putin’s part, it is “continued talks.” Of course, there was consensus on one issue: unity on Tehran’s nuclear program.

Concluding the Camp David Gulf Cooperation summit, President Obama promised to help secure the Gulf States from cyber attacks by Iran and ISIS. He announced that a working group will be formed to “consider methods to better secure their military and critical infrastructure networks “against potential terrorist-launched cyberattacks” The U.S. would also help setting the Gulf States to up to creating “national policy workshops, and improve information-sharing.”

Earlier this year, in his closing remarks of the Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, President Obama acknowledged al Qaeda’s and ISIS expert-use of the Internet to recruit “young people online, in cyberspace.”

“For the history of our race, and each individual’s experience,are sown thick with evidences that a truth is not hard to kill, and that a lie well told is immortal.”Mark Twain“Advice to Youth,” 1882

An old joke goes: “How can you tell when a politician is lying?” The answer: “When his lips are moving.” While that may not be universally true, lying and deceit have infested our culture to an extent we no longer expect the truth. Lying is not new, but it has become pervasive.

White lies have always been around; they have always been acceptable and, in fact, are critical to a smoothly-functioning society. What characterizes such lies is that they are told to make someone else feel good, with little or no harm inflicted. For example, when my wife shows off a new outfit it is in my interest to express admiration. In turn, she will say things to inflate my ego, while (I am sure) crossing her fingers behind her back. Lying begins early. I recall occasions when, as a child, lying was preferable to the spanking I would get for a broken window or letting goats into the garden. The 2009 film “The Invention of Lying” depicted what the world would be like without lying – intentionally blunt and cruel, with no religion and no fiction.

In recent years, whenever I have had an opportunity to speak to an American audience concerned about anti-Israel activism and rising anti-Semitism, I point out that in these matters the U.S. is only a few years behind Britain and Europe. Look what is happening on the old continent, I say, and you can see your future. Reading Ruth Wisse’s important essay, “Anti-Semitism Goes to School,” is a reminder that the years change faster than my speeches—so much faster that I feel I can finally say, “Commiserations, America: you have caught up with us.”

It is fascinating how closely our situations resemble each other. Throughout my adult life I have spoken repeatedly on British campuses, and the patterns described by Wisse, though still shocking, are deeply familiar. I have been ushered out of back doors, had things thrown at me, and on one occasion—during an Israeli engagement in Gaza—asked not to come to a London campus because certain students were threatening violence against any visitor known to be pro-Israel.

American society is solidly free of the Israel-centered anti-Semitism that dominates its universities. Can that last?

At the end of her sweeping probe into the normalization of anti-Semitism on American campuses, Ruth Wisse lays down a double challenge. Can the United States, the world’s pre-eminent liberal democracy and the one most exceptionally hospitable to its Jewish minority, retain that exceptional status “by recognizing the threat [posed by contemporary anti-Semitism] and fighting it off?” For their part, can American Jews, by gathering their mettle, help this country’s universities “heal themselves of this most deadly pathology?”

In fact, the challenge is not just national but global. What happens in America will determine whether the Jewish people can maintain a center of power and influence in the Diaspora as well as in the sovereign state of Israel. At this critical juncture, as Wisse acknowledges, American Jewish political power, if it is to be effective, needs to be not just nursed but projected. The turmoil of recent years has been bruising: alongside the campus crisis and BDS, we have seen America’s bilateral relations with Israel collapse, in tandem with an assault of unprecedented scale against the “Israel Lobby,” a hydra-headed creature whose efforts to derail American foreign policy were menacingly portrayed in a 2007 book of that name by the political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

Relations between Germany and Israel are at a crossroads. Is it possible for the German government to continue to steadfastly support the country even as Jerusalem continues to refuse to allow the Palestinians to establish their own state?

The man who changed relations between Germany and Israel pauses to reflect as he sits in his living room in the western German town of Königswinter. “The situation is pretty hopeless,” he says. The comment sounds both disappointed and disenchanted.

His hair has receded and the wrinkles on his face are more pronounced, but he remains as sharp as ever. Rudolf Dressler, 74, is describing the current situation in Israel and expressing his deep concern.

He served as the German ambassador in Jerusalem for five years. In 2005, as Dressler’s term in Israel was already drawing to a close, he wrote an essay that included a sentence in which he expressed Germany’s unconditional solidarity with Israel more radically than anyone before him: “The secured existence of Israel lies in Germany’s national interest and is thus part of our reason of state.” It was this turn of phrase, coined by Dressler, that German Chancellor Angela Merkel incorporated into her speech before the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, three years later.

Dramatic Developments

Today, Dressler has become a sharp critic of current Israeli policies. He calls the development in Israel “dramatic.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has just won the elections based on a platform in which he clearly opposes the creation of a Palestinian state. Dressler is urging German politicians to make sure that this results in consequences. Germany has already waited too long, he says.

For obvious reasons, Germany has a unique relationship with Israel. Germany is historically linked to the Jewish state like no other country. In fact, Israel’s very existence would be unthinkable without the Holocaust. Israel was created as the new home for the Jewish people, a place where they could remain secure from persecution and pogroms after the Germans had murdered 6 million of them during World War II.

Shortly after the war, the fledgling country of West Germany faced one of its greatest challenges as it sought to forge close ties with Israel. In September 1952, when the Reparations Agreement was signed by then German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett, the two men didn’t even shake hands. Earlier, the delegations had been forbidden from speaking German — the language of the perpetrators — during negotiations, although many Jewish negotiators had German roots.

Old Certainties Crumble

Today, that initial coolness has warmed into a close relationship. In Israel, Merkel ranks among the most popular foreign politicians, and Berlin is all the rage among young Israelis traveling abroad these days. Likewise, in one-and-a-half weeks Israeli President Reuven Rivlin will travel to Berlin to celebrate 50 years of diplomatic ties.

Yet suddenly the old certainties are beginning to crumble. In all probability, Netanyahu will be reelected by the Knesset as Israeli prime minister, putting a man in power who during the elections openly spoke out against a Palestinian state. Although two-thirds of Israelis favor a two-state solution, the majority of the population rejects the notion of returning the land where settlements have been built on the West Bank.

This puts German politicians in a moral dilemma: How should they deal with a country that is constantly pursuing a regime of occupation and whose treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories occasionally resembles apartheid? Germany is one of Israel’s most important arms suppliers. In recent years, the Germans exported highly advanced submarines to the Israelis that can be armed with nuclear warheads. This cost German taxpayers over €1 billion ($1.12 billion).

Of course, one of the reasons given for this move was that, in view of its history, Germany has an obligation to guarantee Israel’s security. An additional moral justification referred to Israel’s stalwart position for many decades as the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. But what if Israel decides to permanently revoke all civil rights to the Palestinians in the occupied territories — and this can no longer be glossed over with diplomatic clichés?

‘Clear, Unmistakable Language’

In Berlin a debate is unfolding over whether the old rules still apply in dealing with Israel, only this time it is not being led by right-wing firebrands or errant left-wingers, who have always viewed Israel as a satellite of American imperialism. Instead, these issues are being raised by outspoken friends of Israel. “If statements by Netanyahu cause the two-state solution to lose every shred of credibility, it will be difficult to find Palestinian negotiating partners who are willing to reach a peaceful solution,” warns Elmar Brok, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the European Parliament in Brussels — and a member of Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Removing the prospect of a two-state solution is “irresponsible — even from an Israeli perspective,” he says.

Other German politicians have similar opinions. “If the occupation status becomes permanent, we have to ask ourselves what this means in terms of our policy toward Israel,” says the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the German parliament, Ruprecht Polenz of the CDU. What’s more, the deputy leader of the parliamentary group of the left-leaning Social Democratic Party (SPD), Rolf Mützenich, warns: “If the new Israeli government abandons the two-state solution, this would constitute a new situation that we would have to reevaluate.” He adds that the Israeli government must then realize “that the German government would have to assume a different basic stance.”

The Foreign Ministry in Berlin has a similar view. Officials there take statements made by Netanyahu during the election campaign “very seriously,” despite the fact that he revised them after the election. Still, what does this mean for German policies? For years now, Berlin has addressed Israel with a “clear, unmistakable language,” just as Dressler is urging, and openly criticized the ongoing construction of settlements — yet without any success. To achieve something would require a more pronounced distancing combined with pressure, deadlines and ultimatums. “We could limit trade with Israel, but also curb support in the form of arms deliveries, without affecting Israeli security,” argues Dressler.

Nick Gray is Director, Christian Middle East Watch, a British organisation dedicated to objective and factual discussion of Middle Eastern issues, especially of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Nick, who is a regular contributor to The Commentator, blogs at cmewonline.com

The ridiculous and self-destructive Palestinian leadership continues to mourn the entirely just and legitimate re-establishment of Israel. But that’s no excuse for people in the West to indulge this nonsense, especially while carnage engulfs the MidEast

The state of Israel recently celebrated 67 years of independence as the world’s only Jewish state. On Friday, the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza mourned 67 years of so-called, “Israeli occupation”.

Although tension and conflict between the Jewish and Arab populations of the vague area once known as “Palestine” had already been going on throughout the period of British rule, the events of 1948 (67 years ago!) carry a poignancy and a particular significance for both sides.