Displaying the most recent of 90925 posts written by

Ruth King

Palestinians: Abbas “The Jew” by Khaled Abu Toameh

The unprecedented outcry over Abbas’s participation in the funeral of an Israeli leader is further proof of the degree to which Palestinians have been radicalized.

This is what happens when you unleash a tidal wave of hate against Israel and its leaders in the media, mosques and public rhetoric. In light of this brainwashing, how do you expect your people to respond when you, in any way, associate with an Israeli leader?

If attending the funeral of an Israeli leader, especially one who devoted the past two decades of his life to peace between Israel and the Palestinians, draws such condemnation, it is easy to imagine the result of a Palestinian leader making a peace overture to Israel.

Even if the current condemnation eventually dies down, it will have sent a message to future Palestinian leaders: “No peace with Israel, not in our time, and not in any time.”

Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas is facing a barrage of criticism for attending the funeral of former Israeli President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem. The fury directed towards Abbas comes as no surprise to those who are familiar with the unrelenting campaign of anti-Israel incitement that has been taking place for many years in Palestinian society.

If attending the funeral of an Israeli leader, especially one who devoted the past two decades of his life to peace between Israel and the Palestinians, draws such condemnation, it is easy to imagine the result of a Palestinian leader making a peace overture to Israel.

President Abbas is now receiving a dose of his own medicine. This is what happens when you unleash a tidal wave of hate against Israel and its leaders in the media, mosques and public rhetoric. This is what happens when you inform your people that Israeli leaders are “war criminals” who ought to be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court. This is what happens when you drive into your people that Jews are desecrating with their “filthy feet” Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem. This is what happens when you accuse Israel of “ethnic cleansing”, “extra-judicial executions” and “poisoning” Yasser Arafat.

Steve Kates Razing Kaine

Franklin Roosevelt’s first vice-president, Jack Garner, described the office as “not worth a quart of warm spit”. Yesterday’s debate between GOPer Mike Pence and Democrat Tim Kaine suggests there’s more to it than that: a worthy and solidly conservative successor if Trump wins.
The most interesting thing about yesterday’s US vice-presidential debate was that there was not a dime’s worth of difference between the arguments put by Republican Mike Pence and the views of running-mate Donald Trump. The difference was entirely in presentation. Pence has a professional politician’s skills in knowing how to phrase what he says and how to craft his arguments just so. But so far as what they amount to, they are exactly the same as Trump’s.

Kaine, on the other hand, was a much worse version of Hillary. She was more polished in the first presidential debate, understood her position and how to present it. By contrast, I found Kaine both irritating and shallow to a startling degree. I have always recognised that anecdote is the replacement for analysis when you are dealing with people unused to complex ideas. But if, underneath anything Kaine said, there actually was a complex idea of any sort, I missed it.

Pence described how a Trump administration would deal with national defence, illegal immigration, economic revival and racial tensions. He defended removing illegals, along with stop-and-frisk policing. What surprised me most about Kaine was the extent to which he repeated Trump’s policy proposals over and over – under the assumption, I imagine, that merely hearing what Trump wishes to do is automatically to oppose it. That’s what comes from locking oneself in the media’s echo chamber, where the prevailing wisdom of the chattering classes is the only acceptable position. My suspicion, however, is that for those who like what Trump has to offer, it is exactly what he proposes that they like. Kaine did no more than reinforce in the minds of Trump’s supporters the reasons to vote as they will on November 8.

Who knows if any of the more difficult parts of the Trump agenda can be done? But there is little doubt that most Americans want a stronger military, the defeat of ISIS, renewed border security, the revival of the economy, a tax system that promotes economic growth and a more cohesive community.

And then there were the two personalities on display. Kaine had no presence and seemed a man of little substance. Pence came across as a deeper thinker, someone whose ideas have been forged in the fires of debate with those who disagree with many of the things he says. As a conservative, even in a party of the right, he would be a lonely presence. It was a positive pleasure to hear him.

Peter Smith: He Will Fight Them on the Beaches

Lord Halifax might have made a good PM if not for Hitler. As it happened, a man of singular talent, though not to everyone’s taste, was required. Now it’s true that Trump is no Churchill, but he’s also the only hope in these, our latest, current and unforgiving times.
People have strong feeling about political leaders. They love ‘em or hate ‘em, so to speak. I, too, suffer from partisan-political feelings.

Donald Trump isn’t the very model of a modern PC gentleman. Nonetheless, I am inclined to believe that beneath his unrefined exterior he is fundamentally decent. I struggle to see how you can raise such accomplished and loving children if you are an outright jerk. On the other hand, I find Hillary Clinton thoroughly disagreeable. I believe that her actions rank with those of infamous liars, shysters and carpetbaggers of yesteryear.

Do you see what I mean? I am hopelessly compromised. And so are those in the other camp. When it comes to Clinton and Trump the gap between opposing views, as the Donald might say, is huge. I regularly correspond on politics with an American lady I met on a trip to Israel. This is what she wrote in the course of a recent exchange.

I’m simply flummoxed that someone as [over-kind compliment deleted out of modesty] as you would find a bloated, thoughtless, mendacious, self-aggrandizing playground bully “the only candidate for the times… the best candidate by far, not the least worst.”

Here is Jody commenting on QOL on a recent piece of mine:

Trump is a dangerous narcissist of the type the Phillipines people are dealing with right now; he’s every bit as vulgar, offensive and unstable as Duterte.

There will no meeting of minds on the character of the two candidates. There seldom is when it comes to presidential politics, but this time the order of disagreement is on a different scale. Trump is uniquely polarizing. For the sake of the argument let us say that he has some worrisome personality traits. The question is whether his foibles are fatal to being a good president.

I don’t know for sure. No-one knows exactly how a potential leader will perform until they assume leadership. Bill Clinton, for example, had a foible or two and seemed to do OK, particularly after his ‘pivot’ towards the conservative side. What is clear to those paying attention is that the times are crying out for ‘a disrupter’ not someone who offers more of the same.

Dwelling on personality must be put in context of the perilous situation facing America and, by extension, Western civilization. American voters face two starkly different futures. Here is just a taste.

Islam inside and out has to be confronted. Trump will do that. Clinton won’t. Allowing in job lots of tens of thousands of Muslim refugees is a never-ending recipe for bringing the European problem to America. Once done it can’t be undone. It will metastasize and bring misery. No matter what how peaceful you know your Muslim neighbour or workmate to be, the goal of their creed is to take over. If you don’t get that, you don’t get anything — and your granddaughters will get what they don’t deserve.

The Third World’s population is rising rapidly as the West’s is static or declining. Strong and secure borders are required to keep out hordes of political and economic refugees. Trump will build strong borders. Clinton won’t. Don’t get that? Then face being inundated by welfare recipients and seeing neighborhoods change in ways that you won’t like. Keep your daughters indoors after that.

The US economy is in a mess, as are most Western economies. Even without a moment’s study of economics, or even with the dubious benefit of a course of study delivered by some left-wing economics hack, do you really believe that raising taxes and doubling down on environmental regulations will rescue the economy? Lowering business taxes and reducing regulatory obstacles, including on fossil fuel development, are the only effective tools left in the locker. Trump will use them. Clinton can’t. Don’t get that? Then you will see more industrial wastelands, more unemployment, more inner-city disenchantment and violence.

North Korea Activity at Nuclear Site Raises Speculation Over New Test Satellite images show vehicles and people around the tunnel entrances of nuclear test site By Alastair Gale

New satellite photos show activity at all three of the tunnel complexes at North Korea’s nuclear test site amid speculation that Pyongyang will stage another nuclear test around major national anniversaries in the coming days.

The photos, taken on Oct. 1, show vehicles and people around the tunnel entrances. While activity occasionally takes place at individual portals it is unusual to have activity at all three at once, experts say.

The activity could be for several reasons, including the collection of data from North Korea’s Sept. 9 nuclear test at the site, or preparation for a new test, said Jack Liu, an analyst for the North Korea-focused website 38 North, which first published the photos.

South Korea’s government says North Korea appears ready for another nuclear test whenever the order is given from its leader, Kim Jong Un. Speculation among analysts has centered on two days: the 10th anniversary of North Korea’s first nuclear test on Sunday and the 71st anniversary of the founding of its ruling Workers’ Party on Monday.
The West Portal at the nuclear test site shows mining carts nearby and a pile of spoil likely from excavation work. Mr. Liu said the pile doesn’t appear to have grown over the last two months, based on previous satellite images. ENLARGE
The West Portal at the nuclear test site shows mining carts nearby and a pile of spoil likely from excavation work. Mr. Liu said the pile doesn’t appear to have grown over the last two months, based on previous satellite images. Photo: U.S.-Korea Institute at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies/Airbus

North Korea has a pattern of staging major events on key anniversaries. The September test was held on the 68th anniversary of North Korea’s founding as a state.

A new nuclear test would likely intensify discussions at the United Nations Security Council on a response to North Korea’s provocations, which also include a long-range rocket launch in February. North Korea is banned from testing nuclear bombs and ballistic missile technology by several U.N. resolutions.

Despite international condemnation, Mr. Kim has pledged to press ahead in developing an advanced nuclear program, which he says is needed to deter an invasion by the U.S. and South Korea. Many analysts say Mr. Kim uses the nuclear buildup to bolster his own standing with North Korea’s military. CONTINUE AT SITE

In Syria Crisis, Russia Expands Alliance With Iran, Increases Missile Presence Military adds small warship to growing presence off Syrian coast By Thomas Grove

MOSCOW—Russian officials intensified their rhetoric over the Syria crisis Thursday, saying Moscow was stepping up cooperation with Iran and boosting its military presence in the eastern Mediterranean.

The Russian military said Thursday that a new small warship armed with cruise missiles will join Russian’s naval grouping off the coast of Syria in the coming days, adding to Moscow’s naval presence in the region. Russia’s sole aircraft carrier is also expected to join the grouping before the end of the year.

Russia also boosted contacts with Iran over the Syria crisis. Following a meeting with his Iranian counterpart Thursday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov said he had discussed “immediate renewal of the coordinated international efforts aimed at an inclusive inter-Syrian dialogue,” the news agency Interfax reported.

Tehran and Moscow have supported Syrian President Bashar al-Assad since the start of the conflict. U.S. and Russian-led attempts to broker a truce recently collapsed, with Washington warning that Moscow’s role in a major offensive against the city of Aleppo had prompted discussions about giving more powerful weaponry to rebels fighting Mr. Assad’s government.

Russia’s military said Thursday that the U.S. should think twice about any future strikes on Syrian military positions, suggesting Russian antiair defenses could strike them.

The U.S.-led coalition erroneously bombarded a Syrian military site Sept. 17, prompting outrage in Damascus and Moscow. Russian military spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said Thursday that the Syrian army had S-200 and Buk missile systems, while Russians had S-300 and the latest-generation S-400 systems on their base at Hmeimim, the news agency Interfax reported. CONTINUE AT SITE

Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, Seven Years Later Europe got the kind of transnational American president it wanted. What it didn’t get was peace and security.By Sohrab Ahmari

Seven years ago this week the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to Barack Obama. The decision was greeted with ridicule in the U.S., and it unsettled even supporters of the president, who hadn’t finished his first year in office. Still Mr. Obama flew to Oslo and delivered one of his trademark speeches. The philosopher-president was the toast of Europe.

Mr. Obama today almost never mentions the prize, and the Nobel Committee’s former secretary has expressed regret over the choice. Barack Obama the Nobelist is a bad memory among Europeans, who face more pressing concerns, chief among them a Syrian civil war that has flooded the Continent with more than a million refugees.

Yet this Nobel indigestion is unfair to Mr. Obama. On its own terms his prize has been a resounding success. Seven years later the president has achieved the future-tense victories first celebrated in Oslo.

The committee that awarded the prize hoped for an America that would no longer play the hegemon. The Norwegians wanted a U.S. president who would “strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” as the Nobel citation put it. A leader who would emphasize “the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play,” whose decisions would track the “attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”

This was the heyday of transnationalism, the philosophy that says all states—strong or weak, free or unfree—must submit to “norms” drawn up by law professors and global organizations such as the U.N. and European Union. The transnationalist view can’t tolerate an exceptional nation that imposes its will on others, even with the best intentions.

Mr. Obama was (and remains) a committed transnationalist, and he staffed his foreign-policy team with like-minded thinkers such as the journalist Samantha Power, the Yale Law School dean Harold Koh and the Princeton scholar Anne-Marie Slaughter. At his Nobel lecture in Oslo, Mr. Obama declared: “I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don’t.”

The real-world results are a different matter. They are on display in Aleppo, where the Bashar Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian patrons are close to bringing to heel Syria’s last non-Islamic State opposition stronghold. Syrian forces shell houses and drop shrapnel-packed barrels on what remains of the city’s civilian buildings. Vladimir Putin’s pilots stalk the skies, setting women and children alight with incendiary ordnance.

In Oslo in 2009, Mr. Obama said of situations like the one unfolding in Syria: “Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later.” How costly?

During Tuesday’s vice-presidential debate, Republican Gov. Mike Pence spoke of creating no-fly zones to protect civilians while Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine floated a “humanitarian zone” in Aleppo. The trouble is that the Kremlin this week deployed the SA-23 Gladiator anti-air system to Syria for the first time. The SA-23 can take down aircraft as well as missiles. It is an insurance policy for the Assad regime that will raise the stakes in any future U.S. military action.

With his endless patience for rogues, in other words, Mr. Obama has tied the hands of his successor. Set aside the human misery in Syria. Set aside, too, the destabilizing effects of millions of refugees on Syria’s neighboring states and Europe. The expansion of Russian and Iranian influence in the Middle East represents a long-term strategic setback for the West. CONTINUE AT SITE

No Apologies for Being Jewish In the Days of Awe, we examine our sins, but defending Israel isn’t one of them. By Ruth R. Wisse

Know Before Whom You Stand. These words, inscribed above the ark holding the Torah scrolls in many synagogues, assume added significance between Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, and Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. During these Days of Awe, Jews of faith take the measure of themselves before the Almighty. The term “penitential prayers” does not begin to convey the range and intensity of the accounting that worshippers give of themselves about every aspect of their lives.

To lay bare one’s deeds before the ultimate Seat of Judgment is very different from the practice of individual introspection or meditation. Here each person stands within the community in a public attestation to dozens of wrongdoings. In the extensive Yom Kippur confessions, worshippers recount sins committed willfully or involuntarily, “by idle talk or by lustful behavior . . . violence or by defaming Thy Name.” All the verbs for transgression are in the first-person plural, we rather than I, making the individual an organic part of the nation. I used to marvel at how young college students, hardly past adolescence, passionately assumed moral responsibility for wrongs they had never committed.

Jews rightly take pride in their culture of self-accountability—before the Ultimate Judge and justly established human authorities. This culture has created and sustained a remarkably resilient people. Lamenting the excesses of the current American electoral cycle, the columnist Ira Stoll imagines how much richer the country’s politics would be if “this spirit of self-examination were exported from the Jewish religion into the rest of American culture.” If democracy requires the patient improvement of life in a community, nothing furthers that goal better than the practice of individual and collective self-scrutiny.

But the millennial-long history of Jewish self-restraint also stands as a warning. It is all very well to focus on overcoming your failings. Yet the search for moral perfection can also render individuals, and nations, prey to those who believe in conquest rather than self-conquest and who join in holding you accountable for their misdeeds. The same confessional posture, praiseworthy when standing before the Perfect Judge, becomes blameworthy when adopted before an enemy that has you before a rigged tribunal.

In the 20th century, some modern European thinkers and political leaders began singling out the Jews for their alleged racial or religious or social culpabilities. Many Jews felt obliged to answer apologetically for these supposed failings, instead of exposing the evil ideology that had chosen them for its target. Jewish Marxists, for example, blamed Jewish capitalists and bourgeoisie, even though defamation was leveled equally at Jewish professionals, artisans, journalists and paupers. CONTINUE AT SITE

The U.S. and U.N. Have Abandoned Christian Refugees The U.N.’s next secretary-general, António Guterres, says that persecuted Christians shouldn’t be resettled in the West. By Nina Shea

Six months ago, Secretary of State John Kerry officially designated Islamic State as “responsible for genocide” against Christians, Yazidis and other vulnerable groups in areas under ISIS control in Syria and Iraq. So why has the Obama administration entrusted the survival of these people—and so much valuable American aid—to a troubled office at the United Nations, which, like its parent organization, has never even acknowledged that the genocide exists?

The State Department says it is helping religious minorities who have fled, along with millions of other displaced Syrians and Iraqis, primarily through the U.N. America has sent over half of $5.6 billion in humanitarian aid earmarked for Syrians since 2012 to the U.N.

Yet the U.N.’s lead agency for aiding refugees, the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), marginalizes Christians and others targeted by ISIS for eradication in two critical programs: refugee housing in the region and Syrian refugee-resettlement abroad.

For instance, the Obama administration’s expanded refugee program for Syria depends on refugee referrals from the UNHCR. Yet Syria’s genocide survivors have been consistently underrepresented. State’s database shows that of 12,587 Syrian refugees admitted to the U.S. in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, only 68 were Christians and 24 were members of the Yazidi sect. That means 0.5% were Christians, though they have long accounted for 10% of Syria’s population. In 2015, among 1,682 Syrians admitted, there were 30 Christians and no Yazidis.

Asked about these numbers at a Sept. 28 Senate hearing, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Simon Henshaw asserted that only 1% of Syria’s registered refugees are Christians. How to square that with the estimate that half a million Syrian Christians—a quarter of that community—have fled, as Syriac Catholic Patriarch Younan warned in August.

State Department officials variously speculate that Christians don’t want to register for resettlement abroad, or that they are waiting in line behind hundreds of thousands of Sunni Muslims who left Syria earlier.

Yet there is evidence to suggest that the problem lies within UNHCR. Citing reports from many displaced Christians, a January report on Christian refugees in Lebanon by the Catholic News Service stated: “Exit options seem hopeless as refugees complain that the staff members of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees are not following up on their cases after an initial interview.” This failure could be another example of why the U.N. Internal Audit Division’s April 2016/034 report reprimanded the UNHCR for “unsatisfactory” management.

At a December press conference in Washington, D.C., I asked the U.N.’s then-high commissioner for refugees, António Guterres, to explain the disproportionately low number of Syrian Christians resettled abroad. The replies—from a man poised to be the U.N’s next secretary-general—were shocking and illuminating.

Mr. Guterres said that generally Syria’s Christians should not be resettled, because they are part of the “DNA of the Middle East.” He added that Lebanon’s Christian president had asked him not to remove Christian refugees. Mr. Guterres thus appeared to be articulating what amounts to a religious-discrimination policy, for political ends.

As for why so few Christians and Yazidis are finding shelter in the UNHCR’s regional refugee camps, members of these groups typically say they aren’t safe. Stephen Rasche, the resettlement official for the Chaldean Catholic Archdiocese in Erbil, Iraq, told Congress last month that in Erbil “there are no Christians who will enter the U.N. camps for fear of violence against them.” CONTINUE AT SITE

White House Coordinated on Clinton Email Issues, New Documents Show Emails obtained by the Republican National Committee find close contact with Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign in early 2015By Byron Tau

WASHINGTON—Newly disclosed emails show top Obama administration officials were in close contact with Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign in early 2015 about the potential fallout from revelations that the former secretary of state used a private email server.

Their discussion included a request from the White House communications director to her counterpart at the State Department to see if it was possible to arrange for Secretary of State John Kerry to avoid questions during media appearances about Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement.

In another instance, a top State Department official assured an attorney for Mrs. Clinton that, contrary to media reports, a department official hadn’t told Congress that Mrs. Clinton erred in using a private email account.

The previously unreported emails were obtained by the Republican National Committee as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records of Mrs. Clinton’s time in office. The RNC provided to The Wall Street Journal only some of the emails, leaving it unclear what was in the remaining documents. The RNC said it released only emails relevant to the communication between the White House and State Department.

Meredith McGehee, chief of policy, programs, and strategy at the nonpartisan advocacy group Issue One and an expert on ethics and campaign finance, said the email exchange would probably raise no legal concerns because federal law permits members of the White House staff to engage in some political activity.

Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement has dogged her campaign for months, with Republicans and other critics saying it shows a carelessness with government secrets and undermines her claim to good judgment. Donald Trump’s campaign posted a statement on his website last month saying the Obama White House knew Mrs. Clinton was using a private email server.

Mrs. Clinton has acknowledged the arrangement was a mistake, but she has rejected the notion that national secrets were placed at risk. Her campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment about the new email disclosures.

The emails highlight the revolving door between the State Department, the White House and the Clinton campaign in early 2015 as Mrs. Clinton geared up to run for president. CONTINUE AT SITE

MY SAY: THINK VEEP IT’S IMPORTANT

Governor Pence was impressive in the debate. Don’t dismiss the importance of the Vice President. Here is an updated version of a column I wrote in 2012 published by Family Security Matters.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/think-veepits-important

“….An active Vice-President can influence policy, be an effective spokesman for legislation, and if necessary take over the administration and finish an interrupted term. A vice president is also poised to run for election and complete the agenda of a successful predecessor.The Vice President is first in the line of succession to a President who is removed, resigns, becomes incapacitated or dies. The Vice President as designated by our Constitution, is also the President of the Senate and can break tie votes. That can be crucial in a closely divided Congress.

In the past, electors in the Electoral College, were permitted two votes and the candidate who came in second became the Vice President almost automatically but since 1940 the candidate chooses the potential Vice-President.

The only modern Presidential candidate who did not pick a Veep and had Congress do it for him was Adlai Stevenson, a pompous poseur who lost to Dwight Eisenhower whose Vice President was Richard Nixon.

The qualifications for Vice President are exactly like those for President ….an individual must:

Be a natural born U.S. citizen
Be at least 35 years old
Have resided in the U.S. at least 14 years

Although the President is limited to only two terms, a Vice-President has no limit of terms. Thus, Joe Biden can be Vice-President for life as long as a Democrat is President. And Al Gore could do so too. In fact, Al Gore could have become President if Bill Clinton had been removed from office after the impeachment. He would have had almost two full years to cool America.

What a chilling thought.

The office of Vice President has evolved greatly. At one time it was seen as ceremonial and virtually a sinecure. However, the influence and prestige of the office grew markedly in the last century. Perhaps because a seemingly unprepared and unprepossessing figure like Harry Truman became a worthy successor to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

President Roosevelt who was ill for much of his time in office actually had two Vice Presidents before Harry Truman. John Nance Gardner, a governor of Texas was the Veep in the first two terms (1933-41). Gardner did not think much of the office. He is quoted as saying “the office is not a bucket of warm piss.”