Thursday, October 23, 2014

Revealed: U.S. Cut Off Arms Supply to Israel During Gaza War - P. David Hornik



by P. David Hornik




140730_FOR_GazaIDFInvasion.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge

Last August 14 the Wall Street Journal reported that, in July, after Israel had launched Operation Protective Edge in Gaza, Washington had surprised Israel by turning down an Israeli request for “a large number of Hellfire missiles.” Hellfires are an important air-to-surface precision weapon, suited to the kind of warfare Israel was waging against Hamas and other terror groups in Gaza.

But as Amir Rapaport, a veteran Israeli military-affairs writer and editor of the Israel Defense site, now reports:

The full truth…is much more severe: apparently, during Operation Protective Edge, the USA had completely stopped all connections with Israel’s defense procurement delegation based in the USA. For days, no item whatsoever could be shipped. The expected airlift of US ammunition had never even arrived at its point of departure.
The crisis began about ten days into Operation Protective Edge, pursuant to allegations that the percentage of uninvolved civilian deaths in the Gaza Strip was extremely high (IDF admitted that about one half of all Palestinian deaths were probably civilians who had not been involved in the fighting).
At that stage, the Israeli defense establishment submitted to the USA a request for various types of munitions, including Hellfire missiles, to replenish the dwindling inventories of IDF….
The order to stop the processing of all Israeli requests came from a senior echelon—probably the White House, among other reasons, because Israel had ignored the initiatives of Secretary of State John Kerry and preferred to end the operation through a direct channel with the Egyptians. The State Department had been annoyed with Israel for several months, since it was revealed that Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon had referred to Kerry as “Messianic” in closed sessions.
No less than three reasons are given here for Washington’s ire toward Israel. Regarding the first—the allegedly high Palestinian civilian casualties—an ongoing study by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Information Center has found, so far, that the death rate was indeed about 50%-50% between Palestinian combatants and civilians. This compares favorably with ratios of three civilians killed for every one combatant in Afghanistan, and four civilians for every one combatant in Iraq and in Kosovo.

As for Israel’s “ignor[ing]” of Kerry’s “initiatives,” those initiatives entailed negotiating a ceasefire with Hamas through the good offices of Turkey and Qatar—a move that was staunchly opposed by both Israel and Egypt because Turkey and Qatar are patently pro-Hamas actors.

And as for Yaalon dubbing Kerry “messianic,” he did so in the context of Kerry’s attempted Israeli-Palestinian peace process in which U.S. political and military officials had usurped Yaalon’s authority as Israeli defense minister by intensively planning an Israeli military retreat from the Jordan Valley—a step that Yaalon views as incompatible with Israel’s security.

In any case, Rapaport calls the munitions cutoff a “major trauma in US-Israeli relations” that has already had repercussions. Among other impacts, he reports that

within the Israeli defense establishment, this recent affair has led to a reassessment of the almost automatic reliance on an airlift of ammunition from the USA as a part of practically every wartime scenario.
Among the measures currently under consideration is…a massive transition to Israeli-made munitions. For example, the Hellfire missiles the Americans failed to deliver may be replaced by IAI [Israel Aerospace Industries] missiles, while precision guided munitions by Rafael may replace US-made air-to-surface munitions. Since Operation Protective Edge, Israeli defense industries have already received urgent procurement orders for arms and munitions worth billions of NIS.
Rapaport notes, however, that
the arms issue was resolved toward the end of Operation Protective Edge and…despite the recent events, the strategic defense relations between the two countries continue even now, including extensive intelligence cooperation. US DOD [Department of Defense] and IMOD [Israel Ministry of Defense] are also proceeding with numerous joint research and development projects and US defense aid will remain a substantial element of the Israeli defense budget, which enables Israel to acquire such extremely costly systems as the F-35 future fighter aircraft. The Americans have also increased their support for the Iron Dome project during Operation Protective Edge….
All in all, this episode may signal a major learning experience for Israel and a step toward its maturation as a country: the realization that, while the United States is a friend and ally, it is not a Big Brother to be relied on to the extent that one puts one’s fate in its hands.

By Rapaport’s account and others, the deeply institutionalized U.S.-Israeli strategic relationship is surviving and even thriving in the Obama era. But that does not mean an ideologically hostile administration like Obama’s will not exploit Israel’s dependence to punish it for perceived wrongs, even—or especially—at a time when Israel is under attack as it was from thousands of Hamas rockets last summer.

Since there may well be other such ideologically hostile or Israel-unfriendly administrations in the future, it is good to know that Israel is reassessing its “almost automatic reliance” on U.S. airlifts and considering a “massive transition to Israeli-made munitions.” It would be a lot more realistic.


P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Beersheva and author of the book Choosing Life in Israel.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/davidhornik/revealed-u-s-cut-off-arms-supply-to-israel-during-gaza-war/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama Prepping Amnesty for 34 Million? - Matthew Vadum



by Matthew Vadum


The Obama administration may be planning to issue 34 million work visas and green cards in coming weeks without the required legal authorization from Americans’ elected representatives in Congress, according to a recently uncovered government procurement order.

If 34 million individuals were amnestied the U.S. population would grow by more than a tenth. The U.S. Census Bureau currently estimates the nation’s population at a little over 319 million. There is no official count of illegal aliens present in the United States but 11 million is one widely circulated estimate. Some studies put the figure as high as 38 million.

The procurement order is a smoking gun suggesting that President Obama intends to plunge the nation into a grave constitutional crisis after Election Day by using executive orders to unilaterally enact an amnesty affecting millions of undocumented aliens now unlawfully present in the United States. The prospective amnesty could also impact aliens who have yet to arrive in the country.

Congress has repeatedly refused to grant the amnesties that Obama seeks, but the president refuses to take no for an answer, pressing on regardless of how much damage he inflicts on the country.

A large-scale amnesty would be a profoundly cynical move that would reward lawbreaking and beget future immigration amnesties. It would also spell electoral death for the Republican Party in coming years because Latinos, who are believed to comprise the bulk of the illegals, have traditionally shown a strong preference for the Democratic Party and its left-of-center public policies.

The amnesty that Obama promised his radical political base had been widely expected to take place after Labor Day last month but in the summer the president took significant political heat over the plan and the still-ongoing invasion of the southern border by illegal aliens –many of them unaccompanied minors and gang members — from Central America. Obama then apparently decided to delay the executive action until after next month’s elections in hopes of not sabotaging Democrats’ efforts to hang onto control of the U.S. Senate.

Obama’s scheme came to light when Breitbart News uncovered a draft request for proposals that appears to provide broad outlines of the president’s extra-legal amnesty scheme two weeks before congressional elections that may place both chambers of Congress in the hands of Republicans.

The Oct. 6 procurement document prepared by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) requires that prospective documentation vendors be able to handle a “surge” scenario involving 9 million ID cards in a one-year period “to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements.” This means the USCIS is gearing up to more than double the baseline quantity of green cards and work permits it issues.

USCIS will need at least 4 million cards a year and an extra 5 million cards in 2016 under the “surge” scenario. “The guaranteed minimum for each ordering period is 4,000,000 cards,” according to the document. “The estimated maximum for the entire contract is 34,000,000 cards.”

USCIS is purchasing materials needed to make Permanent Residency Cards (PRC), also referred to as green cards, as well as Employment Authorization Documentation (EAD) cards that have been issued under Obama’s legally questionable Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. It is unclear how many of each kind of card USCIS would issue.

Jessica Vaughan of the nonpartisan Center for Immigration Studies said the USCIS document “seems to indicate that the president is contemplating an enormous executive action that is even more expansive than the plan that Congress rejected in the ‘Gang of Eight’ bill.”

“Even four million combined green cards and EADs is a significant number, let alone the ‘surge’ contemplated by USCIS,” according to the article by investigative reporter Jonathan Strong of Breitbart News. “For instance, in the first two years after Obama unilaterally enacted DACA, about 600,000 people were approved by USCIS under the program. Statistics provided by USCIS on its website show that the entire agency had processed 862,000 total EADs in 2014 as of June.”

The Obama administration brushed off the apparent significance of the request for proposals.

“Solicitations of this nature are frequent practice for all USCIS contracts and allow the Agency to be prepared for fluctuations in the number of immigration applications received, which can arise for any number of reasons,” USCIS spokesman Christopher Bentley yawned.

Republicans lawmakers bristled.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), a longtime amnesty opponent, said the request for proposals is a “startling confirmation of the crisis facing our Republic.”

Kevin Smith, an aide to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who along with the congressional GOP leadership supports some kind of immigration amnesty, said Boehner rejects the Obama plan. “The Speaker has made perfectly clear to the president that it is unacceptable for him to unilaterally re-write immigration law on his own and the Speaker will never support this type of action,” Smith said.

Although amnesty remains deeply unpopular among the American public at large, the activist Left wants the illegal aliens present in the U.S. to be processed because they see them as future Democratic voters. In addition, many labor unions, such as SEIU (which has executives focused solely on immigration issues) see today’s illegals as future union members. Business lobbies favor amnesty because they crave the cheap, largely unskilled labor.

The radicals’ goal is to use immigration to subvert the American system, just as it has been since the 1960s when the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) shepherded reform of that era’s immigration laws through Congress. The concept is simple: Flood America with people who don’t share Americans’ traditional philosophical commitment to the rule of law, limited government, and markets, in order to force changes in society.

President Lyndon Johnson at least allowed the lawmaking process to function, signing the immigration reforms of the day into law after they had worked their way through Congress.

President Obama isn’t that patient. He doesn’t care what Congress does. He’s got a pen and a phone –and now a request for proposals involving 34 million immigration documents — with which to fundamentally transform America.


Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/obama-prepping-amnesty-for-34-million/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Salubrius on the Opinion Piece that Ben White wrote for al Jazeera



by Wallace Edward Brand (Salubrius)


Al Jazeera recently carried an op-ed by Ben White, a graduate of Cambridge University entitled "Israel's definition as a 'Jewish state'". According to Mr. White, "The alternative to Israel as a "Jewish state" is not a Palestinian Arab state, but a state where all have equal rights.”  But he ignored the fact that even if the Arabs residing in Palestine qualified as a people, the question was res judicata, having been decided in 1920 at San Remo and calling the Arabs in Palestine the “Palestinian People” does not add much to his case.

The question is an important one and should not go unanswered.

Mr. Ben White appears to be a very learned fellow and I might have accepted his comment but for the fact that I am familiar with the history of the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Resolution, and the Palestine Mandate.

It was Woodrow Wilson that was opposed to large European Countries dominating the colonial territories captured by the Allies in WWI.  He knew that under natural law as declared by John Locke, a people should have self-determination.  That was America’s view in our War of Independence.  But he was not deciding the general question of whether that would apply to secession as well as decolonization.  

The US had balked at the attempted secession of the South at great cost to itself still in the memory of many in 1917.  Looking forward to the end of hostilities in WWI he appointed a Committee of Inquiry that dedicated its efforts to determining the “people” in each area of the world that should be recognized as having the right of self-determination.  

The late Julius Stone, a world recognized International Lawyer found  "That the provision for a Jewish national home in Palestine was an application of the principle of self-determination is manifest from the earliest seminal beginning of the principle. The Enquiry Commission, established by President Wilson in order to draft a map of the world based on the Fourteen Points, affirmed the right of the Jewish people that Palestine should become a Jewish State clearly on this ground. 

Palestine, the Commission said, was "the cradle and home of their vital race", the basis of the Jewish spiritual contribution, and the Jews were "the only people whose only home was in Palestine”…

In 1919 the question of who should get the political rights to Palestine came up in the Paris Peace Talks but was not resolved at that time.  However the American diplomats carried with them briefing documents on that question.  I have copied them at length in my legal opinion archived at SSRN.com/abstract=2385304.  You will note the same language used in the report of the 1917 Committee of Inquiry and the briefing documents of the American diplomats to the Paris Peace Talks.  

In 1920 the Allied War Powers reconvened in San Remo and adopted the British Balfour policy of recognizing the Jewish People as the cestui que trust of the political rights to Palestine and rejecting the Arab People’s application.

In 1964 the Soviet dezinformatsiya apparently seized on this as a way to erect a barrier to Jewish sovereignty over Palestine which formed a barrier to its question for domination of the Middle East as a way to extend its hegemony over Western Europe.  They invented a “Palestinian People”,  inserting this term in the preamble of the 1964 PLO Charter drafted in Moscow and corroborated only by the first 432 members of the Palestine National Council, each hand-picked by the KGB.   

A member of the PLO executive board agreed with me, stating to the Dutch newspaper Trouw in 1977 that there was no Palestinian People, that the term was just used for political purposes.  And indeed there is no good evidence of Arab nationalism in Palestine before 1964, only national anti-semitism.  They separated from Syria because the Syrians were not anti-semitic enought for Haj Amin-al Husseini.  They didn’t want to rely on one another — but would prefer that to rule by the Jewish People.  

 During WWI none of the Arabs in Palestine or Syria had fought on the side of the Allies even though they claim they were promised independence by the British if they did so.and many Arabs had fought for the Ottomans

And in the diary of Count Folke Bernadotte who investigated this question for UNSCOP, the UN Committe on Palestine that was looking to see what to do upon Britain’s abdication as Mandatory Power or trustee of the Political Rights placed in their trust, Count Bernadotte noted that there was no evidence of Palestinian Arab Nationalism.  

In fact Zahir Muhsein has said that when the Jews had been annihilated, the PLO would merge with Jordan.  He said that the term Arab Palestinian People was a political ploy.   So when the Soviet dezinformatsia invented the Palestinian People in Moscow, Soviet Diplomats at the UN were pushing to dignify the right of a “people” to self-determination as not only natural law but also international law.  

But in my legal opinion I show why that would not have worked even if the Palestinians were a genuine people.  When the right of a people to self-determination is in tension with the right of a sovereign state to territorial integrity, the right of a people is subordinate.  It is necessary to maintain world order that state boundaries be inviolable.

In any event, what the Allied Principal War Powers at San Remo did was to adopt the formulation of the British Balfour policy.  It did not recognize the right of self-determination of the Jews in Palestine, it recognized World Jewry, the Jewish People as the cestui que trust of the political rights to Palestine.  These are group rights are a collective of political rights, the right to form a government and then to administer it.  

The individual political right to one vote for each citizen is frequently discussed as a civil right. The civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities were saved in the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Resolution and the Palestine Mandate that stated in detail how the League of Nations were to expect the Balfour and San Remo policy to be carried out.  The French tried to add “political rights” to the savings clause for civil and religious rights but the others would not accept that amendment.

The Balfour Policy was to be carried out in two stages.  In the first would be a Jewish National Home, permitting Jews to settle "as a matter of right" anywhere in Palestine.  This was cut down to Palestine west of the Jordan in 1922 when the policy was approved by 52 countries.  However, when the Jewish population increased to a majority, the Jews would get not only the right to settle, but also to rule.  It must also, before ruling, exhibit the capability of exercising sovereignty.  Then it would become a Jewish Commonwealth without being an anti-democratic government.

So Ben White was looking at the wrong formulation.  It was the Jewish People and the Arab People who filed competing applications at the Paris Peace Talks.  It was the Jewish People who was the cestui que trust of the Political Rights to Palestine and who obtained legal dominion over them under the law of trusts in 1948 when the Jewish People became a majority within the Green Line and had control over the people in that area and the rights for that territory vested.  

The remainder of the rights were vested in 1967 when the Jewish People took control over Judea,Samaria and East Jerusalem.  Israel has not as yet asserted control over the first two territories.  But it has over East Jerusalem.  So if Mr. White is correct, any group without even calling itself a “people” could empower the UN to redraw the boundaries of a sovereign state.  That is pretty far fetched, even for one not a student of International Law.

In conclusion, knowing this history, it is hard for me to conclude that what, under international law, is the state of the Jewish People is anything but a democratic Jewish State.


Wallace Brand (Salubrius)

Source: Original Material 

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Why the New Reports of Chemical Weapons in Iraq Matter - Fred Fleitz



by Fred Fleitz


Revelations last week by the New York Times that U.S. troops found chemical weapons in Iraq – about 5,000 CW warheads, shells and aviation bombs – but the size of this find and injuries from these weapons to American soldiers were covered up by the Bush administration has caused experts on both sides of the political spectrum to scramble to answer one question: does this prove President Bush was right that there were undeclared weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the 2003 war?

I believe the answer to this question clearly is yes. But a more important question that needs to be answered is why the American public was misled about this issue for a decade.

Last week’s New York Times article is not the first report of U.S. troops finding chemical weapons in Iraq after 2003. There were prior discoveries of chemical weapons –about 500 by 2006 – but they were dismissed by the Pentagon and Bush critics because these weapons were said to be degraded, pre-1991 weapons which did not prove Saddam Hussein had an active chemical weapons production effort.

This same argument is again being used by Bush critics to discount the recent New York Times report that far more chemical weapons were found in Iraq than the government had previously acknowledged.

The “but those WMDs don’t count” argument was always a dubious one since UN Security Council Resolution 687 and other resolutions used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq required the Saddam Hussein regime to account for and destroy all WMDs, not just those produced prior to 1991.

The 500 CW weapons found by 2006 were not the only evidence of WMDs discovered by U.S troops. CNN reported in 2008 that the U.S. spent $70 million to secretly remove 550 metric tons of uranium yellowcake from Iraq.

Bush administration critics discounted chemical weapons found in 2006 to defend their memes that there was no WMD in Iraq and “Bush lied and people died” about Saddam Hussein’s WMDs.

Strangely enough, several Bush officials also dismissed evidence that U.S. troops found chemical weapons in Iraq. Karl Rove, the president’s deputy Chief of staff, admitted in 201o that failing to refute charges President Bush “lied us into war” was his biggest mistake when he served in the White House. According to Rove, he and other senior officials gave up disputing claims by the president’s critics that Mr. Bush lied about pre-war WMD in Iraq because they did not want to relitigate this issue and wanted to move on.

This included repeated efforts by Rove and other Bush officials to conceal, discredit and downplay chemical weapons discoveries in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. These efforts were evident to Congressman Peter Hoekstra when he tried to investigate and publicize reports of chemical weapons found in Iraq by U.S. troops.

In June 2006, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Hoekstra along with former Congressman Curt Weldon and former Senator Rick Santorum tried to call attention to reports that U.S. troops had found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003. These reports included a June 21, 2006 fax from the Director of National Intelligence to Senator Santorum which contained declassified “key points” from a National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) report on chemical weapons discovered in Iraq since 2004.

The NGIC report said approximately 500 chemical weapons munitions had been recovered by coalition forces since 2003 which contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. According to the report, filled, unfilled pre-Gulf War munitions were assessed to still exist and the use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for Coalition forces. The report also said “while agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.”

According to Hoekstra, the Pentagon not only ignored the concerns raised in 2006 by Santorum, Weldon and himself about CW discoveries in Iraq, it was much more critical of their claims than Democratic members of Congress or the mainstream media.

The news media ridiculed the three legislators for challenging the conventional wisdom that there were no WMDs in Iraq. I remember seeing editorial cartoons at the time depicting Hoekstra, Santorum and Weldon as kooks. I believe media criticism of Santorum for his WMD statements contributed to his reelection defeat in 2006.

Congressman Hoekstra was careful to say in 2006 that while the chemical weapons found in Iraq did not prove Saddam Hussein had an active CW production program, they did prove Hussein lied to UN weapons inspectors. Hoekstra also maintained these weapons represented a threat to U.S. troops.

I believe the size of the chemical weapons stockpile recently reported by the Times and alleged injuries to U.S troops caused by these weapons decisively refutes the specious arguments made by Bush critics and some Bush officials in 2006 that these weapons were too old, too few and too weak to count as legitimate WMDs. The Times report also proves Hoekstra, Santorum and Weldon were right.

Accountability is needed in light of the Times article about WMDs found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

If the existence of such a large number of WMDs – even older, degraded ones – was known in the mid-2000s it likely would have had a significant effect on American politics by putting the lie to Democratic and media attack lines that there were no WMDs in Iraq and Bush lied about Saddam Hussein’s WMDs to justify going to war. The political effect might have been so great that one of this nation’s most vocal critics of the war in Iraq – Barack Obama – may not have been elected president.

The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media relentlessly attacked the Bush administration for lying about WMDs in Iraq to destroy the Bush presidency. We now know the real liars were in the mainstream media. They not only poisoned the political atmosphere in Washington but prevented an honest accounting of Iraqi WMDs after the war which could pose a threat to the region today if the Islamic State gets its hands on remaining chemical weapons caches in Iraq which U.S. troops did not find.

That the news media was dishonest about WMDs in Iraq found after the war will come as no surprise to most Americans who have come to expect the press to reflexively attack Republican presidents and give Democratic presidents a pass.

For me, the actions of Karl Rove and other senior Bush officials to cover up evidence of WMDs found by U.S. troops were far more reprehensible. Regrets expressed by Rove over the last few years for not trying to counter the relentless post-war criticism of President Bush over WMDs in Iraq are too little and too late. Rove and company misled the American people, lied to Congress in 2006 and withheld information from Congress about WMD discoveries. By their actions, these Bush officials betrayed the public trust.

While Rove and other Bush officials involved in the Iraq WMD cover-up will never be held legally accountable for their actions, it is my hope that the 2016 GOP presidential candidates will think long and hard before associating with them.


Fred Fleitz

Source: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2014/10/21/why-the-new-reports-of-chemical-weapons-in-iraq-matter/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

EU Tyranny: New Law against Democratically Dismantling EU from Within - Timon Dias



by Timon Dias


It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."

Two years ago, the European Commission proposed a law that would authorize an "independent authority" within the European Parliament [EP] to decide whether EP parties would receive an official legal status as EP parties. This legal status is needed for a party to obtain EP party subsidy, which is designed to cover 85% of party expenditures.

Despite a British and Dutch lobby against the law, it was passed by the EP on September 29, 2014.

Among the demands parties have to meet are that of "internal party democracy" and that they must "respect the values on which the European Union is based." Among these values are: "pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men." In addition, the parties must be active in at least 7 out of 28 EU member-state countries.

The law states that: "decisions regarding a party's respect for values on which the EU is based, may only be taken following a special procedure and in cooperation with a committee of independent prominent individuals."

Although the law does not specify the composition of this illustrious special committee, it is highly probable that Martin Schulz, the EP's chairman, is among them. Schulz is a German socialist who was reelected as EP chairman even though he was absent during the parliamentary debate for the position. Schulz is also known for strongly condemning the content and distribution of a film critical of Islam, "Innocence of Muslims," and for his disproportionate criticism of Israel.

Even though the committee is designated as an "independent authority," within the self-aggrandizing dynamic of the EU, one cannot be "prominent" and "independent" at the same time.

Therefore, prominent individuals within the EU are those that fully and without any reticence subscribe to the EU's mission of dismantling European nation states and furthering the EU's influence at the cost of national democracies.

Due to this law, it is highly probable that EU-skeptic party factions such as the "Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy" [EFDD], chaired by Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party [UKIP], will no longer receive a subsidy. It is also likely that when, for example, EU-skeptic and anti-immigration parties like Marine le Pen's Front National and Geert Wilders' Freedom Party succeed in forming an EP faction, it will be denied a subsidy because the "independent committee" will decide that the faction does not subscribe to the EU's values of tolerance and pluralism.

Nigel Farage (left), head of the UK Independence Party, and Marine Le Pen, head of France's National Front party. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons)

A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe." But as Europe is a continent, it is difficult to be against a continent. Anti-EU figures are against an organization that is increasingly overruling national democracies without the consent of their national populations.

The EU has been struggling for years with dwindling popularity among its member-state citizens. The rise of anti-EU parties in the European Parliament has been a jolting wake-up call for prominent pro-EU figures.

It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within. Only parties that do not deviate too much from the EU utopia of a federally-controlled European continent will be allowed to participate in the European Parliament without being obstructed, hindered or disadvantaged by that same EU. It indeed seems that if the EU cannot realize its ideals with the support of its citizens, it will simply do so without the support of its citizens.

If, in the future, the EU will further obstruct anti-EU in the European Parliament parties in their quest for dismantling the EU in a civil and democratic way, it may achieve the following downward spiral.

First, it will show the citizens of member states the rather tyrannical and utterly intolerant face of the EU. Second, this sentiment may further popularize and empower anti-EU parties to push for the democratic dismantlement of the EU from within. The EU may in turn respond with even more repressive measures to obstruct anti-EU parties in the European Parliament, which will make the EU even more unpopular among member state citizens and thus adding to the popularity of anti-EU parties.

It is impossible to predict how this standoff would end, but if this were to occur, it is possible that EU member states would decide nationally to simply leave the EU. This could be a very real scenario if, for example, the French Front National, British UKIP and Dutch Freedom Party would win majorities in national elections.

This would leave the EU in a dismembered state of chaos, which could have been prevented if the EU had allowed – without foul play and obstruction – European Parliament factions to push for the dissolution of the EU in a peaceful and democratic way.


Timon Dias

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4804/eu-tyranny-law

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Ya'alon Confirms: Israel Providing Intelligence Against ISIS - Tova Dvorin



by Tova Dvorin


Ya'alon says intel is Israel's 'contribution' to campaign against jihadi group, notes Jerusalem 'has enough problems' in any case.
Israel has been providing the international coalition to defeat Islamic State (ISIS) with intelligence, Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon confirmed Monday - but has no intention of physically joining the campaign.

Ya'alon revealed Israel's involvement during an interview with PBS's Charlie Rose.



First, however, he expressed confidence in the operation - specifically the chances of eliminating ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

"If you enjoy intelligence superiority, and air superiority, [then] in the end, you know, he should be found and he can be targeted," Ya'alon stated. "I believe it's possible."

Ya'alon deflected the idea that Israel would join the coalition itself, however.

"We have enough challenges - apart from ISIS, which is far from us," he lamented. "But, you know, we have a very good relationship with many parties who participate in the coalition. First of all [we have] the United States, and some other Western parties, as well as Arab parties."

"By having this bilateral relationship - sharing intelligence, and so forth - this is our contribution to the operation," he added.

Rumors have been swirling for some time that Israel has provided the US with intelligence on the terror organization, but Ya'alon's statements mark a rare official confirmation of that fact.

Israel, meanwhile, has been fighting ISIS on the domestic stage as well - seeking to eradicate a growing trend for Israeli and Palestinian Arabs to pledge allegiance to the group. After government sources revealed earlier this month that some 30 Israeli Arabs have been confirmed to have joined ISIS; a political campaign has started to revoke citizenship for the foreign nationals.


Tova Dvorin

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/186446#.VEfDEhYYjLM

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Politics of Psychopathology - James G. Long



by James G. Long


The history of Marxism is both tragedy and farce. The tragedy is obvious to all who can bear to see -- tens of millions of dead, massive social and economic destruction, the gulags,  enslavement, poverty, the favoritism shown to themselves by Marxist elitists, and endemic corruption. The Soviet Union collapsed due to dishonesty, inefficiency, incompetence, and corruption in 1991. The constituent republics of the Soviet Union almost unanimously fled the embrace of Mother Russia after the dissolution of the USSR. Now North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela, economic basket cases all, continue the Soviet model, and Putin is trying to revive Russia with the same old tired Marxist philosophy, but no longer labeled as Marxist. Despite the serial disasters of Marxism there is an abiding faith among Marxists worldwide that Marxism can be made to work and prosper. This faith is particularly ironic when found within American academia and politics, since America was the most successful social and economic experiment in history until recently. 

In the one hundred fifty years since Karl Marx became active, it seems not to have occurred to a single ranking Marxist leader except Milovan ─Éilas that something is wrong with the whole Marxist concept. On the contrary, the wholesale death and destruction within Marxist states is celebrated as a necessary evil and the eventual collapses are blamed on human failure and inadequacy. Marxism is thought by Marxists to be an infallible historical certainty, so any failure must be a fault in the implementation or the personal shortcomings of those doing the implementing. Barack Hussein Obama is but the latest of a long line of Marxist heroes that were expected to usher in the new Utopia, and Obama with all his shortcomings is failing and degrading the USA more rapidly than any other president in memory. Granted, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave is not fertile ground for establishing a Marxist system.  Yet many millions of dollars were invested in making Obama president of the USA, and the Hope and Change were palpable that finally -- finally! -- the hard work and dreams of Marx and his followers would be realized. 

So, what happened?

Obama is now widely seen as a failure even by some of his most prominent and voluble supporters. A few years ago, Democratic candidates for office were eager to be seen with Obama, but in the 2014 election cycle, Obama is only marginally more popular than Ebola. The people who in 2008 were so fervent about prospects under Obama seem not to have dropped the whole idea of Marxist big government (they still support socialized medicine in the form of ObamaCare) but they have certainly dropped Obama. Marxist ideologues will seek another hero and reorganize for another go, given how close they came to transforming the USA into a Marxist Utopia. If Marxist melanin was not the key to Marxism triumphant, perhaps a Marxist vagina will do the job. Or not.

Almost no one apart from a relatively few otherwise intelligent elitists fundamentally promote Marxism. Marxists collect enablers, supporters, followers, useful idiots, useless idiots, college students, and voters by buying support (social programs), by indoctrinating the young, and by creating and exploiting social, economic, and ethnic divisions, much as did the Soviet Union and Fascist Germany. Marxism's followers are not sophisticated enough to realize that they are being defrauded, and the fraud has been ongoing for a century in widely scattered areas of the globe.

Opponents of Marxism have a gut reaction against the irrational destruction wrought by Marxism, but they have no captivating "capitalist" (Marx's own term) ideology. Free market, rule-of-law economies have vastly superior performances compared with any other economic system, but free markets are undermined when Marxists use the law and convince their supporters to take from producers rather than becoming productive themselves. Case in point; the black demographic comprises Obama's strongest supporters, yet black jobs, income, and wealth are now in greater decline than elsewhere, and black dependency grows.  It is ever thus for Marxist states, but the elitist nomenclatura always does well. Gross corruption is typical of Marxist states and of other psychopathic states (militant Islam), and is becoming an ever larger factor in the USA.

If insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome each time, Marxists must be the craziest people on planet earth. But as a class, Marxists are at least adequately intelligent and often have superior academic credentials. There must be another factor at work, but what?
Psychopathy.

Psychopathy accounts for the incomprehensible behaviors and dreadful results of Marxists. Forget everything you think you know about psychopathy and Marxists, and follow this reasoning which deals with psychopathy from a management perspective.

Psychopathy is the world's most destructive mental disorder. One percent of all people exhibit psychopathic traits. Psychopaths typically are subjects of hereditary or physical damage to their neurological systems, or severe psychological damage such as in cases of child abuse or neglect. Psychopathy is independent of any other trait: intelligence, background, profession, ethnicity, height, weight, you name it. Psychopathy is thought to be incurable at this time. 


Psychopathy is measured by Dr. Robert Hare's Psychopathy Check List (PCL) consisting of twenty-one items classified as either Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD), criminal tendencies, or sexual immaturity. No one scores zero or maxes out on the PCL, most people score very low, and increasing scores indicate troubled individuals, criminals, and psychopaths. 

It is self-evident that totalitarian dictators are antisocial and narcissistic. Karl Marx himself exhibited many characteristics typical of psychopaths. Psychosis (insanity) is a thinking disorder and it is often confused with psychopathy, a personality disorder, but they are completely different and psychosis is not measured by the PCL. 

Damage to the brain that result in psychopathy typically occur in the frontal lobe area, and are often readily observable in neurological exams (EEG, fMRI, CT scan). Psychopaths have no conscience but create a charming, charismatic, and fake personality as cover for their crimes and frauds. This faked attractive personality was described by Dr. Hervey Cleckley in his seminal 1941 book, The Mask of Sanity

In spite of the lack of a conscience and of any civic values, psychopaths otherwise have normal rational abilities and normal ambitions and goals. Without a conscience to restrain them, psychopaths become predatory, and the personality, intelligence, and social background of the individual psychopath determines the object of his predation: money, sex, political power, whatever. Intelligent psychopaths can do major damage in a financial or political organization as their unrestrained ambition propels them toward the top. With no moral restraints, psychopaths have no limits on their acquisitiveness and seek to gain the most they can by controlling other people, which is the ultimate "ego trip" for a psychopath. Political psychopaths cultivate ignorance and dependency in their followers, the better to control these followers.

Even though Marxism is thought of as an economic system, for the head-psychopath-in-charge the economic aspects of Marxism are irrelevant. The attraction of Marxism is that it gives Marxists control over others. Marxism is the primary element in the psychopathic mask of Marxists, and provides a false rationale for Marxist control of all aspects of a state and its citizens. Marxism is not about economics; Marxism is about the psychopath's control of other people -- their finances, their behaviors, their ways of thinking, their lives. True believers in economic Marxism are gullible psychopath enablers and followers, and are not commonly themselves psychopathic. 

The farce of Marxism is demonstrated when the world's worst mental disorder traduces otherwise capable people into a worldwide activity to their own detriment. Psychopaths could not build elaborate systems without supporters; psychopath supporters are not stupid, and some are very intelligent.  But these supporters are certainly susceptible to the charming and horrific nonsense spouted by destructive psychopaths.

You may take this thesis, make minor adjustments for culture and geography, substitute "militant Islam" for "Marxism," and the premise remains equally valid.


James G. Long has been an army captain, a professional engineer, an author, and a blogger, with a lifelong interest in organizational management problems.  mandynamerica.com/blog/

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/10/the_politics_of_psychopathology.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Aid to the Palestinians: A Case of Flagrant Discrimination - Prof. Hillel Frisch



by Prof. Hillel Frisch


BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 275

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The disproportionate dispensation of international aid to the Palestinians is discriminatory and biased. The Palestinians receive considerably more aid per capita than the economic aid offered to African states; and international aid to the Palestinians indirectly abets Palestinian Islamist terrorism. 

If officials in any developed country would dispense aid to their citizens the way the international community dispenses aid to the Palestinians, they would be placed behind bars for blatant discrimination if not racism. This would clearly be the verdict of any court that compared international aid to the 4.2 million Palestinians (World Bank estimate), to Ethiopia, a western ally, and other African states.

The facts of this discrimination are beyond dispute. In 2013, Ethiopia received 3.2 billion dollars in financial aid. The Palestinians in 2013 received approximately 2 billion dollars in aid, and this was before the last round of hostilities between Israel and Hamas.

(See table below of International Economic Aid to Palestinians compared to African States, 2013)

On the surface, these figures in themselves do not seem so prejudicial. The Ethiopians after all receive over 50 percent of the amount of aid the Palestinians receive.

But two considerations, indispensable in allocating resources in any fair means test, change the picture radically.

First, Ethiopia’s population is twenty times even the most generous estimate of the combined populations of the West Bank and Gaza: 94 million Ethiopians compared to 4.2 million Palestinians. This means that the average Palestinian receives fifteen times more aid per capita (US$476) than the average Ethiopian (US$35)! (See table)

But the discrimination does not end there.

The second golden rule in allocating resources in most developed countries is that you benefit proportionately the citizens who are poorer and suffer more hardship. Thus, not only do richer citizens proportionately pay higher taxes, they receive proportionately less allocations or services for the taxes they pay.

Applying this golden rule to our comparison would show that Ethiopians are far needier than the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza – and by a considerable amount. The GDP per capita in Ethiopia is US$500, one of the lowest in the world. In the West Bank and Gaza combined, the GDP is US$2,800. There are no authoritative figures for the GDP per capita for Gaza, but even it were only half of the total average for the West Bank and Gaza, the GDP per capita in Gaza would be nevertheless, three times higher than that for the Ethiopians. Yet, once again, the Ethiopians receive only one-fifteenth the aid the Palestinians receive, though they are over five times needier.

Just imagine if it were discovered that residents in the Upper East Side received fifteen times more services from the state and the City of New York, than, let’s say, the residents of Harlem.

Yet, the most disturbing aspect in this ongoing project of blatant discrimination is that Ethiopia is a state that actively participates in the war against terrorism. For example, it is the largest contributor of troops to the peace-keeping force in Somalia, where Ethiopian troops along with troops from other African states risk and lose their lives in the long war against Harakat al-Shabab, a murderous militia affiliated to al-Qaeda. The Palestinians, in contrast, produce terrorism. Hamas, the rulers of Gaza and arguably the largest political force amongst the Palestinians, has been engaged in indiscriminate acts of terror ranging from suicide bombings to missile launchings for over twenty years.

International aid to the Palestinians, albeit indirectly, abets Islamist terrorism. The billion dollars Abbas spends on Gaza, at least one-third of which is provided by international aid, finances the al-Aqsa Martyr’s Battalions in Gaza who belong to Fatah, a movement President Abbas heads, and which launches rockets indiscriminately at Israeli population centers. It also lets Hamas off the financial hook in governing the Gazan population in order to devote almost all of its resources to fighting the Islamist war against Israel and in paying the salaries of 25,000 teachers they hired after taking over Gaza in 2007. These teachers have since been indoctrinating school children with the jihadist ideology.

This blatant discrimination in the dispensation of international aid repeats itself in the comparison between aid to the Palestinians and Liberia, which may be comparable to the Palestinians in population but by no other human welfare indicator. Take life expectancy; in Liberia is stands at a devastating 60 compared to a respectable 73 for the Palestinians. A comparison between the Palestinians and Kenyans, which like Ethiopians, fight against terrorism rather than produce it, reveals the same picture (See table). The recent conference which promised US$5 billion for Gaza reconstruction only makes the issue of the discriminatory and disproportionate aid to the Palestinians even more salient.

What explains this largess towards the Palestinians?

Much of it can be explained by the belief both amongst the Europeans and the US, the major providers of aid (many of the wealthy Gulf States are too busy financing terrorist organizations elsewhere), that economic aid buys peace and quiet. However, some of the discrimination might be due to perceptions that Africans are less worth the effort, perceptions that might be called ‘racist’.

President Obama has recently embarked on the difficult task of forging an alliance against the Islamic State. Much easier, but no less necessary, is to make sure that international aid, in which the US is a major contributor, avoids rewarding actors that undermine his efforts in the war against terrorism, like many of the Palestinians, instead of discriminating against states like Ethiopia and Kenya who are on the front lines in the battle against extremist Islamic movements.


BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family

International Economic Aid to Palestinians compared to African States (2013)
Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/DT.ODA.ALLD.CD
Table 1


Prof. Hillel Frisch, a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is a professor of political science and Middle East studies at Bar-Ilan University.

Source: http://besacenter.org/uncategorized/aid-palestinians-case-flagrant-discrimination/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Share It