RUTHFULLY YOURS

rhttp://bit.ly/1cJUsj9

Secretary of State, John Kerry, is preoccupied with the attempt to establish a Palestinian state, as a means to advance peace and US interests. However, Congress – which is charged by the Constitution with supervising the Administration – has yet to conduct hearings on the impact of the proposed Palestinian state upon vital US interests. Congress cannot relinquish its constitutional responsibility to probe, independently, the critical implications of a Palestinian state upon the US economy, core values, homeland and national security, as well as upon the stability of pro-US Arab regimes, in particular, and the Middle East in general.

Independent Congressional scrutiny of this Palestinian state-driven policy is doubly-essential against the backdrop of the systematic US Middle East policy failures since 1947.

The US Administration Track Record

In 1948, the US State Department opposed the establishment of a Jewish state. Assuming that Israel would be an ally of the Communist Bloc, and expecting Israel to be devastated by the invading Arab armies, the Administration imposed a regional military embargo, while the British supplied arms to Jordan, Iraq and Egypt.

During the 1950s, the US Administration courted the Egyptian dictator, Nasser, in an attempt to remove him from Soviet influence, offering financial aid and pressuring Israel to “end the occupation of the Negev,” internationalize Western Jerusalem and evacuate the whole of Sinai. Instead, Nasser intensified his pro-USSR policy, subversion of pro-US Arab regimes and support of Palestinian terrorism.

During the 1970s and 1980s, until the invasion of Kuwait, the US Administration supported Saddam Hussein through an intelligence-sharing agreement, the transfer of sensitive dual-use US technologies and approval of five billion dollar loan guarantees.

In 1977, the Administration, initially, opposed the Begin-Sadat peace initiative, lobbied for an international conference, and finally jumped on the peace bandwagon.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Into-the-fray-Sovereignty-Yes-but-look-before-you-leap-337716

Extending Jewish sovereignty over Judea-Samaria is imperative, but some proposals for this imperil Israel no less than the two-state folly.

No one has a job over there… They are shooting at each other. There are drugs. They burn cars. Enough is enough.

– a Swedish citizen, cited in The New York Times, February 26, 2011, on the impact of Muslim immigration.

Lebanonization refers to the [situation] within a single country so riven with religious and other disputes that the country becomes impossible to govern.

– A.M. Rosenthal, cited by William Safire in the New York Times, April 21, 1991.

Two apparently unrelated events occurred over the past week or so.
The one was the publication of the second issue of the political journal Sovereignty by Women in Green and the Forum for Sovereignty, which carried various proposals for alternatives to the two-state paradigm that has dominated – or rather tyrannized – the public debate on the Palestinian question for almost a quarter century.

The other was a visit to Israel by two Scandinavian journalists (one Danish, the other Swedish), who gave a hair-raising account of the influence the massive Muslim migration into their countries is having on their societies at virtually every level.

Despite these two events being seemingly entirely unconnected, they are in closely linked, and Israelis – particularly opponents of the two-state principle – will ignore this at their peril.

  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368176/new-scandal-same-old-christie-andrew-c-mccarthy New Scandal, Same Old Christie It’s not the first time a top official has been fired for lying to the governor. After swiftly dismissing a top official in his administration, Chris Christie was characteristically caustic when pressed by the press for the lesson to be drawn from the scandal: “Don’t lie to the […]

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-climate-change/

The World Meteorological Organisation of the United Nations took its first steps towards establishing the World Climate Program in the early 1970s. Among other things it held a conference in Stockholm to define the main scientific problems to be solved before reliable climate forecasting could be possible. The conference defined quite a number, but focused on just two. The first concerned an inability to simulate the amount and character of clouds in the atmosphere. Clouds are important because they govern the balance between solar heating and infrared cooling of the planet, and thereby are a control of Earth’s temperature. The second concerned an inability to forecast the behaviour of oceans. Oceans are important because they are the main reservoirs of heat in the climate system. They have internal, more-or-less random, fluctuations on all sorts of time-scales ranging from years through to centuries. These fluctuations cause changes in ocean surface temperature that in turn affect Earth’s overall climate.

The situation hasn’t changed much in the decades since. Many of the problems of simulating the behaviour of clouds and oceans are still there (along with lots of other problems of lesser moment) and for many of the same reasons. Perhaps the most significant is that climate models must do their calculations at each point of an imaginary grid of points spread evenly around the world at various heights in the atmosphere and depths in the ocean. The calculations are done every hour or so of model time as the model steps forward into its theoretical future. Problems arise because practical constraints on the size of computers ensure that the horizontal distance between model grid-points may be as much as a degree or two of latitude or longitude—that is to say, a distance of many tens of kilometres.

“Gates-gate: Is Obama the Only Problem with the A-stan War?”
http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2745/Gates-gate-Is-Obama-the-Only-Problem-with-A-Stan-War.aspx

Excuse me while I defend President Obama.

This doesn’t happen often, if ever at all. But this Robert Gates story, whipping through Washington like wildfire, feels like smoke in our eyes.

It all started with an article by Bob Woodward in the Washington Post about the former secretary of defense’s new memoir, “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.” Gates, Woodward writes, had concluded “by early 2010 (that) the president ‘doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war (in Afghanistan) to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.’”

Getting out: my one, undoubtedly accidental, convergence with Obama. But I digress.

Woodward continues: “Leveling one of the more serious charges that a defense secretary could make against a commander in chief sending forces into combat, Gates asserts that Obama had more than doubts about the course he had charted in Afghanistan. The president was ‘skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail,’ Gates writes.”

A commander in chief sends Americans to war “convinced it would fail”? The ensuing dudgeon has never been higher among Obama’s critics, which, of course, should include me.

But there are a couple of points to take into account about this particular revelation from the Gates book via Woodward (the book’s release date is Jan. 14).

First, I found myself lingering over Woodward’s description of “the president’s own strategy.” To be sure, any war Obama fights as president belongs to him, but there is more to this story. Back in 2010, I recall reading a shocking insider account about how the military brass virtually imposed the Afghanistan “surge” strategy on Obama. The headline over this earlier Washington Post story was: “Military thwarted president seeking choice on Afghanistan.” The writer was again Bob Woodward. In fact, the earlier article, one of a three-part series, was adapted from Woodward’s 2010 book “Obama’s Wars.”

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/america-big-dumb-ox/

An interesting new review of American Betrayal from the January 2014 issue of the Australian journal Quadrant, edited by Keith Windshuttle, the leading general intellectual journal of ideas, literature, poetry and historical and political debate published in Australia.

“I have long known Robert Conquest’s three laws of politics, of which the third had always been something of a mystery. One and two I have seen for myself, but the third remained unclear:

1. Everyone is conservative about what they know best.

2. Any organisation not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

3. The simplest way to explain the behaviour of any bureaucratic organisation is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.

The mystery has now been more than cleared up, and if I have learned anything in reading American Betrayal by Diana West, it is that Conquest may not have gone far enough. My own rewrite of Rule Number 3 would be: assume any organisation with actual power will almost immediately be taken over by a cabal of its enemies. That may even have been what he meant but was too polite to say.

No book has ever frightened me as much as American Betrayal. The only thing wrong with reading it is that you find yourself so surrounded by impossible odds that it seems there is no way you can go that isn’t in the wrong direction. Trying to fix things is as bad as just leaving them alone. But because the story the book tells is so incredible, you realise just how unbelievable her thesis would be unless you had read the book yourself. I will therefore first bring to your attention a number of the reviews that were put up on the Amazon website. I’ll only say that none of them gives you anything like the flavour of what the book is actually like. So first read through these and then let us continue from there:

“This explosive book is a long-needed answer to court histories that continue to obscure key facts about our backstage war with Moscow. Must-reading for serious students of security issues and Cold War deceptions, both foreign and domestic.”—M. Stanton Evans, author of Blacklisted by History

“Enlightening. I give American Betrayal five stars only because it is not possible to give it six.”—John Dietrich, formerly of the Defense Intelligence Agency and author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/?p=65617
The first long study on the Jews in Turkey was written by the late American scholar Stanford Shaw—born Stanley Shapiro, a well known Ottoman scholar, who eventually married a Turkish Muslim woman. Though clearly versed in the sources, he produced what was essentially a whitewash of the ‘wonderful’ Jewish life in modern Turkey. Shaw’s is more fantasy than truth.

The present book takes a much more sobering approach. This superb book , Turkey, the Jews, and the Holocaust, by Corry Guttstadt, gives the details of why Jewish life, unlike what the above-mentioned Stanford Shaw claims, was so precarious, even after, and especially so, after the secular Turkish Republic was founded. The author is thoroughly grounded in the Turkish sources, and has done research in fifty archives in eleven countries. She presents a very detailed analysis of how pre-Holocaust Turkey was so difficult for the Jews, how the Turkish government did almost nothing to help its Jewish citizens living in Nazi-occupied Europe, and how it used the precarious situation of the Jews in the world to pass extremely restrictive laws to impoverish its own Jewish citizens during World War II. The few examples where Turkish consuls in Europe helped Jews — so often touted by modern Turkish diplomats and public relations firms — were the exception, not the rule.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-new-liberal-killing-fields?f=puball

As President Obama returns from a well deserved and earned two-week vacation in Hawaii – ok, being quite facetious here – I wonder if he did any reflection between rounds of golf. And why is it that the First Lady remained in Hawaii to celebrate her 50th birthday?

Regardless, I reflected upon the words of George Santayana, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. Reason being, as President Obama returns to Washington DC he is part of a repeat of history. After the fall of South Vietnam the rise of Southeast Asian communism ensued, Cambodia was embroiled in a five-year civil war, 1970-1975, resulting in the ascension of the Khmer Rouge. Under the brutal leadership of Pol Pot the following four years resulted in one of the most horrific acts of genocide.

It what would come to be known as the “Killing Fields” the Khymer Rouge reign contributed to the deaths of between 1.7 to 2.5 million. Pol Pot presided over a communist dictatorship that imposed a radical form of agrarian socialism on the country. His government forced urban dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labor projects. The combined effects of executions, forced labor, malnutrition, and poor medical care caused the deaths of approximately 25 percent of the Cambodian population.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/obama-affordable-care-act-hurts-twice-as-many-as-it-helps

In 2014, 25 million to 30 million Americans who have employer-provided health insurance are likely to lose it, thanks to ObamaCare’s requirement that all plans cover what Washington deems “essential benefits.”

Some employers will consider that unaffordable and drop coverage altogether, when their current, less-expensive plans expire over the course of the year. These 25 million to 30 million are in addition to 6 million who bought plans in the individual market and had them canceled by Jan. 1.

The plight of those 6 million made headline news and caused the first cracks in the Democratic Party’s support for the law. The bigger wave of workplace cancellations will force Democrats seeking re-election this fall to defend a law that harms twice as many people as it helps.

That’s right: At least twice as many will lose coverage in 2014 as will gain it.

The Congressional Budget Office projects 16 million will gain coverage through the law’s Medicaid expansion and subsidized exchange plans. That’s a best-case scenario, rosier than the enrollment figures we’ve seen so far, but still half the number losing coverage.

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/?p=65610
A new round of kudos goes to the government of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper for its steadfast support for Israel. In what has come to be characteristic of its stubbornness in remaining on the right side of history, Ottowa has done it again.

On Wednesday, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird announced the appointment of Vivian Bercovici as ambassador to Israel, effective immediately. As a result, Bercovici — a lawyer with a monthly column in The Toronto Star — is likely to accompany Harper to Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority towards the end of the month.

It is genuinely great news. But Bercovici’s appointment is causing controversy at home and abroad. This is not merely because she was selected from outside foreign service ranks. Nor is it solely due to her being a Jew who spent two years at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem during the early 1980s. Several ambassadors to Israel who fit this description have been praised by the very people who are suspicious of Bercovici.

No, the source of the aspersions being cast on Baird’s choice of ambassador is Bercovici’s worldview. Not jibing with liberal dogma or diplomatic double-speak renders it — and her — non-kosher for the position.

Telling the truth will do that.