ISRAEL Comments turned off

David Singer: France Humiliated by Abbas but Israel Remains Focused

Posted By on December 16th, 2016

France’s reported decision to postpone an international conference planned for December 21.

Originally proposed on 3 June – France’s blatant attempt to replace the conduct of direct negotiations between Israel and the PLO – as provided for in the internationally approved Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap – has embarrassingly fallen flat on its face.

In a document issued in September explaining France’s position – the French Foreign Office asserted:

“France has launched a two-phase initiative. A ministerial meeting, first, took place in Paris on June 3rd 2016, without the Israelis and Palestinians, in order to reaffirm the international community’s commitment to the two-State solution. At that meeting, the main international actors expressed their willingness to create a framework and incentives so that credible negotiations can resume. An international conference, to which all parties will be invited, will be organized in the second half of 2016 for this purpose.”

Surely it would have been much easier – and certainly much cheaper and more effective – for France to pick up the phone and invite both Israel and the PLO to Paris to sit down and resume their negotiations (stalled since 2014) without pre-conditions and outside foreign interference.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had publicly expressed his readiness to do so on many occasions – but PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas refused to indicate his willingness to do likewise.

The international community may well be concerned to see the two-state solution – the creation of a second Arab State in former Palestine in addition to Jordan – slowly sinking into oblivion.

However the way to resuscitate it was not by calling an international conference – but by threatening both parties with retaliatory action if they failed to meet somewhere at some nominated time and place.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

In Britain, the Tories Settle on the Sweet Spot between Populism and Post-Democracy Theresa May is strengthening both her party and democracy. : John O’Sullivan

Posted By on December 16th, 2016

David Cameron made a quiet return to British politics late last week by giving a talk to American students in London on, among other topics, the question of Brexit. He blamed Brexit — and by extension his own resignation — on “populism.”

I am tempted — okay, I’ll yield to the temptation — to quote Dr. Johnson: “There are ten thousand stout fellows in the streets of London ready to fight to the death against Popery, though they know not whether it be a man or a horse.” Strike out “Popery” and insert “populism” (and maybe change London to Brussels) and you have the present state of establishment European politics in a nutshell.

Populism is the omnipotent demon responsible for all the defeats and humiliations that Brussels and mainstream political parties of Left and Right have suffered in the last year. It conjures up the picture of an unreasonable rage driving millions of voters to embrace wild impossible ideas and undermining common sense and political stability. It’s a useful label to attach to anything you happen to dislike.

Mr. Cameron undermined his own argument, however, by saying on the same occasion that he thought the European Union might eventually collapse because it is inextricably bound up with the single currency, the euro, which is inflicting recession and unemployment on southern Europe. All the same, he wanted Britain to remain in the EU on the grounds that it would make Britain more prosperous in the long run.

If populists can’t follow Cameron’s logic here — How to get Rich from Inside the Coming Euro-Collapse — they may have got something right. So let’s examine populism more closely — I began doing so last week — to see what it really is and where it takes us. We now have a good (but not infallible) guide in the latest issue of the Journal of Democracy, which devotes a number of articles and columns to the topic. And since I disagree with some of the points argued there, I should say that the issue — notably the articles by Ivan Krastev and Takis S. Pappas — is very illuminating and full of good arguments from several standpoints.

ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The Conservative Case for Nuclear Energy It’s reliable, safe, and, unlike solar and wind, doesn’t eat up huge swathes of land. By Robert Bryce

Posted By on December 16th, 2016

As the Trump transition team prepares to take power in Washington, they should be making the conservative case for nuclear energy.

During the campaign, President-elect Donald Trump declared: “Nuclear power is a valuable source of energy and should be part of an all-the-above program for providing power for America long into the future. We can make nuclear power safer, and its outputs are extraordinary given the investment we should make.”

Being pro-nuclear doesn’t require adhering to any particular orthodoxy on climate change or greenhouse gases. Conservatives should support America’s nuclear-energy sector for three reasons: generation diversity, technological leadership, and land sparing.

Before going further, let’s be clear: The U.S. nuclear sector is in crisis. Over the past three years, utilities from Vermont to California have shuttered six reactors, and another five are slated to close. The most recent announced closure, of the 800-megawatt Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan, came just days after Illinois legislators passed a bill that will provide subsidies to keep three reactors in that state in operation. While it’s unclear how many reactors may ultimately be prematurely shuttered, the Center for Energy Economics at the University of Texas has estimated that up to 40 percent of all U.S. nuclear capacity could be closed over the next decade or so.

Many factors are to blame for the nuclear sector’s woes, including low natural-gas prices, aging reactors, post-Fukushima regulations, and heavily subsidized wind and solar. The result is that many reactors can’t make money selling their electricity into wholesale markets, where prices are at, or near, 15-year lows.

What is to be done? President-elect Trump and Congress should move to preserve existing reactors and pave the way for the next generation of safer, cheaper reactors. To be sure, keeping existing reactors will require some of them to get financial help. But those subsidies will help the U.S. maintain a diverse set of generation assets. The polar vortex in early 2014, when extreme cold led to a surge in electricity demand, proved the importance of that diversity. During that time, numerous coal- and natural gas-fired plants faltered, but America’s reactor fleet operated at 95 percent of its capacity. Without those plants, large parts of the country could have been hit by blackouts.

FOREIGN POLICY Comments turned off

In London, U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter Can’t Guarantee U.S. Will Stay ‘Actively Engaged as Leader of This Coalition’ to Defeat ISIS By Bridget Johnson

Posted By on December 16th, 2016

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told reporters in London today that while he can’t give allies assurances that the next administration will continue leading the global coalition to defeat the Islamic State, he believes he can make a good case for continuity with his successor.

Appearing at a joint press conference with his counterpart, UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, Carter emphasized that the “coalition military campaign plan we laid out last January has been on track and proceeding just as we envisioned.”

Foreign ministers discussed how “countries can do even more to accelerate ISIL’s defeat, because the sooner we defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria, the safer all of us in our homelands will be.”

“I was pleased to hear around the table today a number of coalition countries announce additional military contributions that they’ll be making to accelerate the campaign,” Carter added.

Fallon declared that ISIS “is now failing.”

“It controls less than 10 percent of the Iraqi. It’s lost more than a quarter of land it once held in Syria. Its supply of recruits has dried up. And more than 25,000 Daesh fighters have now been killed,” the British secretary said. “…In the last three years, our police and security services have disrupted 12 plots here in the United Kingdom, all either linked to or inspired by Daesh. And that is why the coalition needs to do even more to share its intelligence insight.”

Carter, who has been on a two-week trip with his wife Stephanie to thank U.S. troops, acknowledged “we’re undergoing a presidential transition in America right now — and as I did today with my counterparts, I will share my lessons learned with my successor at the appropriate time, detailing the logic of our campaign plan and the strategic approach, and how we’re seeing results on the ground.”

“And among my recommendations will be the need for the United States to remain actively engaged as leader of this coalition, to ensure that we deliver ISIL a lasting defeat and continue to protect our homelands,” he said.

The Defense secretary said he “can’t give assurances” to coalition allies that the U.S. will stay the course, but he has “confidence in the future of the coalition campaign.”

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Now There Are Calls for Consent Before Kids Receive Hugs and Kisses from Grandma By Walter Hudson (!!!????)

Posted By on December 16th, 2016

Kids own their bodies, and must give consent before hugs and kisses from Grandma. That’s an argument from Scary Mommy:

Teaching children about consent is crucial, so why do some parents still insist their kids hug and kiss relatives even if they don’t want to? As consent and bodily autonomy become a bigger conversation, there are those speaking out about how we need to give children agency over their own bodies — even if it means turning down hugs from grandma and grandpa.

The piece shares this meme found on social media:

Author Valerie Williams expounds:

…how many of us grew up with our parents insisting we accept hugs and kisses from grandmas, grandpas, aunts and uncles with zero regard for our feelings on the subject? I remember being anxious at big family events as a kid knowing how many of our distant relatives would expect to touch me. I recall being nervous of how they smelled or how their beard stubble felt — and the persistent feeling that I simply didn’t want to be touched.

That’s why it’s so crucial that we recognize the validity of those instincts in even the youngest kids. They may not be able to articulate the reason for their discomfort with physical affection, but we need to honor it in order to make good on our lessons of consent. How can we tell our kids that their bodies are their own and then remove that very agency because Aunt Betty wants to give them a kiss? The lesson needs to be that it’s up to them every time — no exceptions.

Except it’s not up to them. From where does this notion of a child’s consent arise? A child’s entire life proceeds without his consent, and often in direct contradiction to his expressed will. That’s a defining aspect of childhood. Aside from physical characteristics, the ability to live by consent is the very thing which distinguishes adults from children. The whole point of parenting is to substitute the guardian’s judgment for the child’s, to override consent on a regular basis.

MEDIA, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

The Washington Post’s Islam vs. Donald Trump’s Islam By Paul Austin Murphy

Posted By on December 16th, 2016

We can never win this “civilizational conflict” if we keep on insisting that Islam itself is blameless.

The Trump campaign against radical Islam doesn’t pull any punches. And why should it? We’re talking about a religion which has tens of millions (or more) adherents who’d love to blow the United States off the map. (That’s after Israel, of course.)

However, according to Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post, it’s Trump and his advisers who believe in “civilizational conflict”. (Presumably after the analysis offered in Samuel Huntington’s book, The Clash of Civilisations.)

Diehl says that Trump’s appointee, Stephen K. Bannon, speaks in terms of a “long history of the Judeo-Christian West’s struggle against Islam”. Michael T. Flynn, the incoming national security adviser, is also in favor of “a world war against a messianic mass movement of evil people”.

Indeed, Flynn has got the measure of things. He once wrote:

“I don’t believe that all cultures are morally equivalent, and I think the West, and especially America, is far more civilized, far more ethical and moral.”

Jackson Diehl thinks that such “Islamophobic” words are counterproductive. That such words cause — rather than solve – problems. But is systematically lying about Islam a successful policy? Are there fewer Islamic terrorists today than there were twenty or even ten years ago? Are Muslims, as a whole, becoming more moderate? Is there a Muslim “reform movement” spreading across the world or even in Europe and the U.S.?

So let’s start telling the truth about Islam, as Flynn and millions of others are attempting to do.

Jackson Diehl lays his own cards on the table when he says that François Fillon’s book, Conquering Islamic Totalitarianism, is an example of what he calls “anti-Muslim rhetoric”. Diehl even has a problem with the suicidal Islamophile Angela Merkel. He said that she “felt obliged to strike an anti-Islamic pose last week, proposing a crackdown on the minuscule number of German women who wear a burqa”.

Jackson Diehl also has a big problem with Egypt’s Abdel Fatah al-Sissi, whom Trump supports. Did Diehl prefer the Muslim Brotherhood regime? You know, the movement that has traditionally persecuted and bombed the Christian Copts of Egypt?

FOREIGN POLICY, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

U.S. Deploys Tanks to Bolster Force in Europe Army restocks Cold War-era Dutch depot as deterrent to Russia By Julian E. Barnes

Posted By on December 16th, 2016

EYGELSHOVEN, Netherlands—The U.S. Army reopened a Cold War-era storage facility here on Thursday and began restocking it with tanks, part of the American effort to return heavy weaponry to Europe in the face of Russia’s military buildup.

The U.S. Army is moving to put in place congressionally approved military forces in Europe, including rotating a heavy brigade into Europe beginning in January. In early spring, units from North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies will begin moving into the Baltic states.

“Three years ago, the last American tank left Europe; we all wanted Russia to be our partner,” said Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, the commander of U.S. Army Europe. “My country is bringing tanks back…as part of our commitment to deterrence in Europe.”

The annual defense authorization act, passed by Congress with veto-proof majorities, approved a $3.4 billion spending plan to boost European defenses including reopening or creating five equipment-storage sites in the Netherlands, Poland, Belgium and two locations in Germany.

The Obama administration pushed for the European defense provisions, though President Barack Obama hasn’t yet signed the act. The incoming Trump administration has signaled it wants a more cooperative relationship with Russia, but hasn’t made clear if President-elect Donald Trump would try to alter or adjust the current plan for boosting European defenses.

U.S. and Dutch officials noted that the storage facilities are well away from NATO’s border with Russia, in part to ensure they aren’t seen as provocative and don’t violate the alliance’s agreement with Russia not to permanently station large forces on the border.

But Gen. Tom Middendorp, the Dutch chief of defense, said the new facility is a sign that NATO will stand together.

“We are taking proportionate and measured steps to defend our alliance,” he said. “We want to make sure we are sending a clear signal to Russia that we will not accept any violation of NATO’s territorial integrity.” CONTINUE AT SITE

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Mau-Mauing the Trump Electors Progressives misread Hamilton to overrule democratic norms.

Posted By on December 16th, 2016

Even before taking the oath of office, Donald Trump has achieved the impossible—driving liberals to the original text of the Constitution. This strange new respect for the Founders will only last until the President-elect nominates a new Supreme Court Justice, and too bad it arrives as an assault on the Electoral College to elect someone other than Mr. Trump.

This organized political campaign is being conducted in the name of Alexander Hamilton, and not merely because of the Broadway musical. In Federalist No. 68, Hamilton wrote that the Electoral College “affords a moral certainty, that the office of president will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

Progressives are invoking this line to claim Mr. Trump lacks such qualifications. And they are calling on those they call the “Hamilton electors” to vote for Hillary Clinton or somebody else when they meet on Dec. 19. The immediate goal is to peel away 37 from Mr. Trump’s 306-vote majority and deny him 270 votes.

This gambit is being promoted by supposedly lucid Members of Congress, liberal columnists, left-leaning constitutional scholars and Hollywood celebrities. OK, maybe the last group is not-so-lucid, but remnants of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign are also on board. GOP electors report being bombarded with tens of thousands of emails and phone calls.

There is an originalist constitutional case that the electors are supposed to act as an deliberative body who can exercise their own “discernment,” as Hamilton put it. They could vote for anyone they choose.

But the Electoral College as the framers conceived it was never meant to be independent of the popular will. The framers had tremendous respect for the judgment of the people, and the electors aren’t supposed to be de novo second guessers. There have been 150 faithless electors in U.S. history, and only nine since World War II.

The historical record suggests that discernment was meant to be triggered only in exceptional circumstances when new information about a President-elect’s “qualifications” unknown to voters emerged after the general election. Nobody can claim that Americans didn’t understand the nature of Donald J. Trump when they voted.

There have been no revelations. The Russian hacking only divulged material about Mrs. Clinton and the conduct of her staff, not Mr. Trump’s fitness. Some Hamilton renegades claim a vote for Mrs. Clinton is legitimate because she won the popular vote, but everybody knew the electoral rules in advance.

ISRAEL Comments turned off

Donald Trump Taps One of His Lawyers as Ambassador to Israel David Friedman makes reference to moving U.S. embassy to Jerusalem By Damian Paletta

Posted By on December 16th, 2016

WASHINGTON—President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday said he would nominate his longtime friend and lawyer David Friedman to be the U.S. ambassador to Israel, assigning a key confidant to a central diplomatic post.

Mr. Friedman, in a statement, said he was honored by the appointment and he looked “forward to doing this from the U.S. embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem.”

That statement is certain to reverberate throughout the Middle East. The existing U.S. embassy in Israel is in Tel Aviv. Mr. Trump has said he wants to move it to Jerusalem, a pledge that former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also made during their campaigns but eventually backed away from.

Liberal-leaning U.S. Jewish groups quickly lined up against the nomination. The lobbying group J Street said it “vehemently opposed” Mr. Friedman’s nomination and warned that he lacked any diplomatic or policy credentials and is “beyond the pale” of American views in the Middle East.

“This nomination is reckless, putting America’s reputation in the region and credibility around the world at risk,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, the group’s president.

Palestinians have warned that moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem would make it more difficult to broker a resolution between the Israelis and Palestinians, and it has been perpetually delayed since a 1995 congressional legislation authorized the embassy to be moved there.

But Mr. Friedman’s selection could signal that Mr. Trump is planning to take a more assertive posture with the Palestinians. Mr. Friedman is known for making provocative statements about issues in the Mideast, even making an unsubstantiated claim in October that Hillary Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Many Republicans have repudiated this claim, but it became a popular accusation on social media and was embraced by Mrs. Clinton’s opponents.

Mr. Friedman is a founding partner of the law firm Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, specializing in bankruptcy law. He had his bar mitzvah in Jerusalem 45 years ago, the Trump transition team said.

MEDIA, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

The Media Game: Creating the Hound Pack of the Day by Yves Mamou

Posted By on December 16th, 2016

To be published on the front page of your own newspaper, to open the news on your own television program, you must bring the “kill news”, the news that kills all others, and – more importantly – the news that all other media will copy and paste.

Journalists are obsessed with creating the hound pack of the day and then enjoying lead hound status. In hound-pack logic, there can be only ONE news item a day – repeated and reprinted infinitely.

Poverty can make a headline when data is officially released, but who cares about what poor people think?

The problem begins when people not on the radar screen become the majority of the population and when this majority of the population become “dissidents”. Then, when the invisible people (in the media sense of the term) engage themselves in the democratic process and protest with a vote, it sounds like a bomb: No one saw it coming! No one could have predicted it!

According to the media, the only poor who need help, support, audience are immigrants. Other people who are poor, especially the whites, do not, for the media, exist. And if they did protest, presumably they would have no right to….

“Representing the middle and working classes as “reactionary,” “fascist”, is very convenient. This avoids asking critical questions. When someone is diagnosed as fascist, the priority becomes to re-educate him, not to question the economic organization of the territory where he lives.” – Eric Guilluy, Le Point

Trump understood this disconnect [of the people from the media] well. During the campaign, in fact, Trump spoke to very few of the media: He made himself a media – tweeting every day, obliging mainstream media to amplify his words. The more the lying media treated him as a liar, the more he was trusted.

Sulzberger also launched an appeal to the “loyalty” of Times subscribers – because thousands of people abruptly cancelled their subscriptions. The disaffection with biased information is growing, and fewer and fewer people are ready to subscribe to propaganda, especially when the facts on the ground so visibly contradict it.

Do you know why Google is investing millions of dollars in perfecting a self-driving car? Not for safety, not for easier driving; they are doing it because it is stupid to let millions of people concentrate on a road instead of on surfing the internet.

It is a “zero sum” game: each second on Facebook is stolen from a newspaper or television station.

Democracy depends for its survival that journalists do correctly the job for which they are paid: reporting facts and not stigmatizing people who do not resemble themselves. It is not the “noble” duty of journalists to prevent things from happening. Just report facts and propose analyses, and let people think for themselves.

New media are appearing on the web: Breitbart in the US, Riposte Laïque in France and many dozens in Europe. Their audience consists of millions of readers.