Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Closing In On A Peace Plan?

When I first started reading about this new attempt at a "peace plan" between Israel and "the many", it didn't really register. Now, suddenly, over the last 2-3 weeks, a lot of momentum has been gained in support of these new proposals - to the point that even the Arab League has agreed in principle. 


Who knows if this will really gain enough traction to serve as the basis for "the plan" that will surely come - according to Daniel 9:27 - but any news relating to widespread support for a peace plan involving Israel is worth watching. Take a look at the flow of these articles, revealing the growing support for this version. Of course, it would essentially take Israel back to the "pre-'67 borders", which renders Israel in a very vulnerable position for future invasions. 

And of course, the pink elephant in the room, is, the question of who will step forward and "confirm" the next covenant? Movement in that direction is also of interest.




Israel and the Palestinians seemed closer Tuesday night than they have been for more than two years to a resumption of substantive peace negotiations, after both sides indicated satisfaction with an apparently American-brokered amendment to the Arab League peace initiative.


US Secretary of State John Kerry, who has spent recent weeks shuttling around the Middle East as well as meeting relevant players in Washington, also sounded fairly upbeat in comments Tuesday. He said there were still hurdles to clear, but “I don’t think you can underestimate… the significance of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, [United] Arab Emirates, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, and others coming to the table and saying, ‘We are prepared to make peace now in 2013.’”






A senior Israeli official told The Times of Israel on Tuesday night that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pleased with and welcomed the steps to advance the peace process taken by the Arab League, which on Monday said it could see a two-state solution based on minor adjustments to the pre-1967 lines, and by Kerry.


In Washington on Tuesday afternoon, Kerry hailed the Arab League’s shift. Speaking at a press conference with Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo, the secretary said the Arab initiative “never received the full focus and full attention and recognition” it deserved when it was first set forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
He said Israelis had been asking him in recent days, “What are the Arabs going to do? What is the Arab attitude towards peace at this point in time? And so the Arab community — and I think they should be thanked for this — saw fit to come here to the United States as a delegation of the Arab League to make it clear that they are re-launching the Arab Peace Initiative.”

Al Thani spoke after his delegation met across the street from the White House with Vice President Joe Biden and Kerry, who has been pushing Arab leaders to embrace a modified version of their decade-old initiative as part of a new US-led effort to corral Israel and the Palestinians back into direct peace talks.
Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat gave backing to the softened Arab League stance, saying that a plan including minor land swaps was consistent with the Palestinian Authority’s official position.
“In the event that Israel should accept a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, the Palestinians may consider small border adjustments, as long as it does not harm Palestinian interests,” Erekat said.









Justice Minister Tzipi Livni (Hatnua), Israel’s chief negotiator with the Palestinians, welcomed on Tuesday the Arab League’s announcement that it would integrate the idea of a “minor” land swaps into the Arab Peace Initiative.
Livni said it was important that Arab leaders recognized that there would be a need to adjust the pre-1967 lines in a final agreement.

Speaking on behalf of an Arab League delegation to Washington, Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani on Monday called for an agreement between Israel and a future Palestine based on the Jewish state’s border before the 1967 Six Day War. But, unlike in previous such proposals, he cited the possibility of “comparable,” mutually agreed and “minor” land swaps between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Al Thani spoke after his delegation met across the street from the White House with Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been pushing Arab leaders to embrace a modified version of their decade-old initiative as part of a new US-led effort to corral Israel and the Palestinians back into direct peace talks.

Al Thani spoke after his delegation met across the street from the White House with Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been pushing Arab leaders to embrace a modified version of their decade-old initiative as part of a new US-led effort to corral Israel and the Palestinians back into direct peace talks.
President Shimon Peres, who is in Italy, also welcomed the amended Arab League proposal.
“It is good that they have come back to a peace initiative at this time,” Peres reportedly told Pope Francis I during a meeting at the Vatican. “It is very important that they have reiterated their support for the two-state solution. The prime minister has said that he wants negotiations. The sooner we can do that, the better.”
“It seems that despite everything that is going on in the Arab world, the Arab League’s peace initiative is alive, kicking, and relevant,” MK Merav Michaeli from the opposition Labor Party said. “Once again we, Israel, have an opportunity for a general peace with the Arab world.”









Arab countries endorsed a Mideast peace plan Monday that would allow for small shifts in Israel’s 1967 border, moving them closer to President Barack Obama’s two-state vision.

Speaking on behalf of an Arab League delegation to Washington, Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani called for an agreement between Israel and a future Palestine based on the Jewish state’s border before the 1967 Mideast War. But, unlike in previous such offers, he cited the possibility of “comparable,” mutually agreed and “minor” land swaps between the Israelis and the Palestinians.


Kerry said that he and Biden stressed the vision that Obama outlined in 2011, when he became the first American leader to publicly declare Israel’s pre-1967 lines as the basis for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement.



Although revolutionary when it was introduced by Saudi Arabia and endorsed by the 22-member Arab League, the initiative has never been embraced by Israel. And Palestinian officials have previously spoken out against any changes to its terms. What was striking, and perhaps most limiting, about the initiative was its simplicity, offering Israel comprehensive recognition in the Arab world in exchange for all lands conquered in the 1967 Mideast war.












Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will address the Knesset on the topic of the Arab League’s flexibility on pre-1967 lines, after all 52 opposition MKs signed a petition on Tuesday requiring him to do so.
Meretz chairwoman Zehava Gal- On, who initiated the petition, said “the government cannot continue dragging its feet and miss this great opportunity.”

She added that “The new, promising version of the Arab League’s proposal for peace with Israel and dozens of Arab states is at our doorstep and the government cannot turn its back on negotiations.”
If at least 40 MKs sign a petition for the prime minister to discuss any topic in the plenum, he is required by law to do so. However, the MKs may only do so once a month.


Opposition leader Shelly Yacimovich also called for Netanyahu to adopt the Arab League’s agreement to land swaps.
“This is an important step by the Arab world, which has a chance to be groundbreaking. We must examine it seriously,” she stated.






Labor MK Erel Margalit wrote a letter to Netanyahu calling it an opportunity to reach a regional agreement that will let Israel be “part of the economic and political fabric” of the Middle East.
“After years of a diplomatic freeze with the Palestinian government, Israel does not have the privilege of remaining indifferent to the Arab League’s initiative and avoid stretching out its hand to implement it...while protecting Israeli interests,” Margalit wrote.


Coalition members from Yesh Atid spoke out in favor of Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani's announcement, as well.
“This is an important, encouraging step,” Science and Technology Minister Ya’acov Peri said.
“An announcement like this gives Israel an opening to continue to strengthen large settlement blocs, in exchange for other territory that will be given to the Palestinians. The time has come to check the possibility of adopting the Arab League initiative as part of accelerating the diplomatic process.”





Posted by at 11 comments:

Escalation In The Middle East




Escalation: Iranian Drones Over Israel



On Thursday an Israeli warplane shot a drone into the Mediterranean just west of the Haifa shoreline. The drone came from Lebanon, and Israeli media immediately reported that it was sent by Hizballah—even though the prime minister and the IDF spokesman, in their public statements on the incident, made no such claim.
Amos Harel, military analyst for Haaretz, reports that the reason for that omission is probably that it wasn’t Hizballah that sent the plane but, rather, Iran—specifically its Revolutionary Guards contingent in Lebanon.
The UK’s Telegraph reports that “according to Syrian rebels and Israeli intelligence, Tehran has poured Revolutionary Guard soldiers into Syria and Lebanon to support its Shiite allies.” The Revolutionary Guards are also believed to have been behind another drone sent from Lebanon in October. That one entered Israeli airspace and was shot down not far from Israel’s nuclear plant in the Negev.


What was the drone’s mission? Probably not to hit Netanyahu, since that would be an open act of war and Iran, with its elections upcoming in June and its nuclear program probably not quite yet at the finish line, wouldn’t seek that outcome at this point. Harel speculates that “Iran wished to openly demonstrate its potential ability to damage essential facilities in Israel.”
Some believe those “essential facilities” were, in this instance, Israel’s new natural-gas fields in the Mediterranean. Harel claims the drone’s route suggests otherwise.
In any case, despite ongoing “options on the table” talk from Washington and “Israel has the right to defend itself” talk from Jerusalem, it’s clear that the situation is getting worse rather than better. One would have to imagine Al Qaeda drones flying over the U.S. or along its coast—except that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization while Iran is a country, and Israel is much smaller than the U.S. (one-ninth the size of Nebraska, as Nebraskan defense secretary Chuck Hagel was informed in Israel last week).
If the situation is bad now, with Iran encamped on Israel’s border and able to send drones toward or even into its territory, clearly it would be a lot worse if Iran had nuclear bombs. And indeed top Israeli security experts have been sounding the alarm.





A new Pentagon assessment of Iran’s military power maintains that in two years time, Iran could flight-test an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of striking the United States, given “sufficient foreign assistance”, is provided to Tehran. The new assessment reiterated a longstanding estimate of the U.S. intelligence community. Iran could test such a missile by 2015 with assistance from nations like North Korea, China or Russia. 

Pyongyang is already in the process of developing the KN-08, an extended range ballistic missile that can reach the US West Coast. The missile’s range could be extended to provide the missile an intercontinental strike capability. Pyongyang and Tehran have been collaborating and exchanging technologies regarding ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for many years; both countries are seeking to match the two technologies to acquire nuclear weapons delivery capabilities. U.S. experts agree that North Korea and Iran could be capable of developing and testing few ICBM class missiles based on liquid propellants, but doubt they could acquire solid-propelled weapons in the near future. The lengthy pre-flight procedures required for fuelling liquid-propelled missiles means that such weapons cannot be mass-fired without warning, as the shorter range missiles could, therefore, providing the defender time to respond, employ missile defense or conduct preemptive attack.

An unclassified portion of the “Annual Report on Military Power of Iran,” dated January 2013 and made available by the Pentagon today, also states that Iran is continuing to develop both the “technological capabilities applicable to nuclear weapons” and “ballistic missiles that could be adapted to deliver nuclear weapons.” In December 2012 US sources were sceptical about Iran’s ability to reach such milestone by 2015. Tehran encountered a major obstacle in 2011, after an explosion killed 21 people during a test, among the casualties was Hasan Tehrani Moghaddam, who was in charge of the country’s missile program.

Iran “also continues to develop ballistic missiles that could be adapted to deliver nuclear weapons,” it states. Despite “increased pressure resulting from sanctions” imposed by the United Nations, there “has been no change to Iran’s national security and military strategies over the last year,” according to the report.






A Gaza-based terrorist linked to a rocket attack on Eilat earlier this month was killed at around 10 a.m. Tuesday morning in a targeted strike by the Israel Air Force, as he drove his motorcycle in the northern Gaza Strip.
Israeli security sources named the man as 24-year-old northern Gaza resident Hitham Mashal, calling him a Salafist who was active in multiple jihadist organizations.

The targeted air strike is designed to thwart future attacks from Gaza and Sinai - attacks that are in the planning stages, according to security officials.
Mashal provided arms to the Shura Council of the Mujahideen in the Environs of Jerusalem, an organization said to be linked to al-Qaida and operating in the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula. The group, which advocates violence against Jews, was behind the rocket attack on Eilat earlier this month, as well as previous strikes on the western Negev.
"Mashal was involved in promoting and carrying out that [the Eilat] attack," said sources in the Shin Bet. "His activities were known to Hamas, which refrained from stopping him."
"Hamas is responsible for preventing attacks carried out, planned, and advanced in Gaza," the sources said.










 A powerful explosion rocked Damascus on Tuesday, killing 13 and wounding 70, Syrian state TV reported, a day after the country’s prime minister narrowly escaped an assassination attempt in the heart of the heavily protected capital.
The nature of the explosion was not immediately clear but rebels fighting to topple President Bashar Assad’s regime have increasingly targeted Damascus, the seat of his power. The large bombing, the second in as many days in the capital, seems to be part of the wider violence wracking Syria as the nation’s conflict enters its third year.






Arab countries endorsed a Mideast peace plan Monday that would allow for small shifts in Israel’s 1967 border, moving them closer to President Barack Obama’s two-state vision.
Speaking on behalf of an Arab League delegation to Washington, Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani called for an agreement between Israel and a future Palestine based on the Jewish state’s border before the 1967 Mideast War. But, unlike in previous such offers, he cited the possibility of “comparable,” mutually agreed and “minor” land swaps between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Al Thani spoke after his delegation met across the street from the White House with Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been pushing Arab leaders to embrace a modified version of their decade-old “Arab Peace Initiative” as part of a new U.S.-led effort to corral Israel and the Palestinians back into direct peace talks.




Also see:






Forced lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.

These were not the scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The ostensible reason for the military-style takeover of parts of Boston was that the accused perpetrator of a horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.


What has been sadly forgotten in all the celebration of the capture of one suspect and the killing of his older brother is that the police state tactics in Boston did absolutely nothing to catch them. While the media crowed that the apprehension of the suspects was a triumph of the new surveillance state – and, predictably, many talking heads and Members of Congress called for even more government cameras pointed at the rest of us – the fact is none of this caught the suspect. Actually, it very nearly gave the suspect a chance to make a getaway.


No, the suspect was not discovered by the paramilitary troops terrorizing the public. He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police. And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.

As journalist Tim Carney wrote last week (Washington Examiner):
"Law enforcement in Boston used cameras to ID the bombing suspects, but not police cameras. Instead, authorities asked the public to submit all photos and videos of the finish-line area to the FBI, just in case any of them had relevant images. The surveillance videos the FBI posted online of the suspects came from private businesses that use surveillance to punish and deter crime on their property."
Sadly, we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties. Once the government decides that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can only do so by taking away our liberties. That is what happened in Boston.

Three people were killed in Boston and that is tragic. But what of the fact that over 40 persons are killed in the United States each day, and sometimes ten persons can be killed in one city on any given weekend? These cities are not locked-down by paramilitary police riding in tanks and pointing automatic weapons at innocent citizens.

This is unprecedented and is very dangerous. We must educate ourselves and others about our precious civil liberties to ensure that we never accept demands that we give up our Constitution so that the government can pretend to protect us.







Amid calls for increased security measures following the Boston Marathon bombing, Senator Rand Paul warned of the dangers of allowing the government to install more surveillance cameras “willy-nilly” in open spaces, citing George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. “I think it’s important to note that it’s a slippery slope, and someday you may have cameras everywhere,” Rand Paul told Fox News’s Eric Bolling over the weekend. “Think of 1984, where the cameras were in your bedroom, and in your dining room, everywhere. You never went a moment’s notice without being watched.”
Paul made a distinction between government surveillance cameras and those used by private companies for security, noting that most of the footage used to capture the Boston Marathon bombers came from private businesses.



Posted by at 3 comments:

Monday, April 29, 2013

Evening Update: Red Lines Crossed? Conflicting Reports





First, we see yet another indicator that Iran has crossed the "red line" for nuclear development, thus triggering Israeli action:







 IDF intelligence chief Amos Yadlin explained in closed conversations what he meant when he said at last week’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) conference that Iran had already crossed the red line that Netanyahu set in a high-profile speech at the United Nations General Assembly.

The retired general’s INSS statement embarrassed Netanyahu, who made a point of defending himself at the start of Monday’s Likud faction meeting.
Yadlin told the Post at the lunch that Iran crossing Netanyahu’s red line did not mean that they have the bomb. Netanyahu set his red line at Iran acquiring the 250 kilograms of 20-percent-enriched uranium needed for a bomb if enriched further to 90%.
But that further enrichment – however quickly and secretly it can take place – still would have to be done for Iran to join the nuclear club.
The news from Yadlin was that Iran had not backtracked on its enrichment, unlike previous assessments by top Israeli and international figures. Netanyahu had been credited around the world with pressuring Iran to backtrack and convert 40% of its 20% uranium to fuel rods that cannot be used to make a bomb.
Yadlin draws a chemical equation and says it can be constituted using yellowcake uranium that Iran possesses.
The IAEA says that Iran has 170 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium that have not been converted. Add that to the 80, and you get 250 kilograms, a crossed red line, an undermined prime minister and a serious problem.
Yellowcake does not sound appetizing to hear about over lunch. But it could end up making big news.




In the article below, Netanyahu states that that Iran "hasn't crossed the red line", as he presented at the UN, but "systematically approaching it and can't be allowed to cross it": 







Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Monday that Iran is racing toward nuclear weapons capability, though he said it has yet to pass the “red line” he set down during his United Nations speech in 2012.
“Iran is continuing with its nuclear program. It hasn’t yet crossed the red line I presented at the UN, but it’s systematically approaching it and can’t be allowed to cross it,” the prime minister said.

Netanyahu’s comments about Iran came in contrast to those of Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin, a retired head of IDF Military Intelligence, who last week said Iran had essentially crossed the “red line” set by Israel regarding its nuclear activity.

Speaking at a security conference in Tel Aviv, Yadlin said that “for all intents and purposes, Iran has crossed Israel’s red line… In the summer, Iran will be a month or two away from deciding about a bomb.”
After his speech at the UN, Netanyahu clarified that Iran’s enrichment activities must stop before they produce enough 20%-enriched uranium for a single bomb, some 240 kilograms (529 lb.).

The possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran gained additional traction last week, when US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon announced in Tel Aviv an unprecedented US sale of advanced military equipment to Israel, including radar systems, missiles, refueling planes and V-22 planes, which would greatly increase the IAF’s capacity to carry out a long-range attack.
On Monday, speaking at his Likud-Beytenu faction’s weekly meeting, Netanyahu also addressed the recent escalation in the country’s south, stating that “Israel will respond swiftly if the rocket fire from the Gaza Strip continues.”
As of Sunday night, when yet another rocket was fired, a total of 19 rockets had fallen in Israeli territory in the five months since the end of Pillar of Defense, the IDF’s November operation aimed at curbing rocket fire at the south.








Slowly and unsafely, Israeli residents of the south are returning to a grinding and familiar daily reality: Every once in a while, a rocket falls in or next to one of the towns and villages in the area; Israeli political and military leaders promise that there will be no return to the grim routine of intermittent rocket fire that prevailed before November’s Operation Pillar of Defense; the IDF strikes unmanned targets in Gaza; and the cycle continues. As of Sunday night, when yet another rocket was fired, a total of 19 rockets had fallen on Israeli territory in the five months since the end of Pillar of Defense.
Saturday’s rocket fire on the Sdot Negev Regional Council while residents were celebrating around their Lag B’Omer bonfires — a Kassam that landed in open ground — offered renewed evidence of a fact Israel is loath to admit: the IDF’s Gaza deterrence is eroding.
Ten days ago, two rockets were fired on the Negev. A day later, Jihad operatives fired two Grad rockets, this time towards the southern resort city of Eilat, one of which landed in the backyard of a house, causing some damage. The IDF avoided retaliating militarily, perhaps out of a desire to allow Egyptian intelligence to pressure Hamas, and settled for closing the Kerem Shalom border crossing. On Saturday night, the army didn’t settle for just stopping the transfer of goods and bombed two targets in Rafah and Khan Younis.

Israel plainly hopes the escalated response will produce a longer lapse in rocket fire. Perhaps. But a complete end to the sporadic fire — the traumatic drip-drip of rocket attacks to which the south has become so bitterly accustomed over recent years — seems unrealistic.








Posted by at No comments:

Iran Has Crossed "Red Line" While U.S. Warns Israel Not To Attack





If true, this is an unbelievable scenario that is developing. The first two articles tell the story:






The former head of Israel's military intelligence said last week that Iran has already crossed the "red line" Israel previously set as the point beyond which it would be nearly impossible to stop the Islamic Republic from attaining nuclear weapons.
In remarks carried by Israel National News, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin, who today heads the Institute for National Security Studies, explained that by this summer, Iran will "reach a distance of one or two months between a decision and a bomb."
What that means is that as soon as the Iranian leadership decides to build an atomic bomb, it will be able to do so in a mere month or two. Far too short a time for Israel or the international community to act.
"This is a breakthrough range that will make it very difficult to stop Iran, when it decides to have a bomb," said the general.









According to informed Middle Eastern security officials, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel delivered a strongly worded message to Israel – do not attack Iran.
The officials told WND that Hagel informed the Israeli government the Obama administration will not accept any unilateral Israeli attack against Iran and that Israel must not strike Tehran without coordination with the U.S.
Hagel further told Israel that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cannot decide alone whether Iran has crossed the nuclear threshold, or the so-called Red Line previously outlined by the Israeli leader.
In a speech at the United Nations in September, Netanyahu drew a red line on a drawing of a bomb, depicting the point where he said Iran will have enough medium-enriched uranium to move rapidly toward building a nuclear bomb.


Last week, Israel’s former military intelligence chief, Amos Yadlin, said, “If Iran continues to enrich uranium at its current rate, toward the end of the year it will cross the red line in a clear manner.”
The information comes after a former International Atomic Energy Agency senior nuclear inspector warned that Iran has discovered a way to circumvent Israel’s red line and that the red line may have already been passed.

Iran has already passed Netanyahu’s red line of 250 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium, estimating Tehran possess as much as 280 kilograms, excluding any material that has already gone through the conversion process.





Also See:








Slowly and unsafely, Israeli residents of the south are returning to a grinding and familiar daily reality: Every once in a while, a rocket falls in or next to one of the towns and villages in the area; Israeli political and military leaders promise that there will be no return to the grim routine of intermittent rocket fire that prevailed before November’s Operation Pillar of Defense; the IDF strikes unmanned targets in Gaza; and the cycle continues. As of Sunday, a total of 18 rockets had fallen on Israeli territory in the five months since the end of Pillar of Defense.






Posted by at 12 comments:

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Sunday News And Commentary




IAF Strikes Gaza Targets In Response To Rocket




Israel will not tolerate a "drizzle" of rockets on its territory, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the cabinet Sunday, explaining an IAF strike in Gaza hours earlier against a terror facility and weapons storage site in southern Gaza.

The IAF action was in response to overnight rocket fire on the Sdot Negev Regional Council.

The IDF attacked targets in the Gaza Strip overnight," Netanyahu said. "I want to make clear that we will not tolerate a 'drizzle' policy; a 'drizzle' of rockets or missiles will be met by a very aggressive reaction, and we will take all necessary action to defend our citizens."
In an apparent reference to concern about a spillover from the Syrian civil war, Netanyahu said this policy will be implemented in the "north, south or any other front."



Israeli aircraft early Sunday morning attacked targets in the Gaza Strip in response to a rocket attack on the Sdot Negev region Saturday night.
There were no initial Palestinian reports of casualties.


The IAF targeted a “terror installation” and a weapons warehouse in the southern Gaza Strip, the IDF spokesperson’s office said, noting that the targets had been hit.
As a result of the rocket fire, the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories ordered the closure of the Kerem Shalom border crossing with the Gaza Strip to commercial traffic. The Erez Crossing, on the northern border of Gaza, will be open to humanitarian foot traffic only





A senior Iranian official on Sunday claimed that the United States and Israel were conspiring to depose the Syrian government in advance of Iran’s presidential elections in June.
Lt. Gen. Yahya Safawi, a senior adviser to the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, was also quoted by IRIB news, an Iranian state broadcasting station, warning Iranians of “hostile tactics” that may be used to damage the unity of the Iranian people and disrupt the elections.




The head of the British Armed Forces told his government that the United Kingdom should be prepared to go to war in Syria, according to a report in The Sunday Times.
Gen. Sir David Richards, chief of the defense staff, warned that a military response to Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons would have to be on a full scale to be effective. He further cautioned that even creating safe zones would risk dragging UK forces into a military confrontation.

The general also argued that imposing a no-fly zone like the one in Bosnia in 1993 would not be effective because of Syria’s air defense.
“Even to set up a humanitarian safe area would be a major military operation without the co-operation of the Syrians,” he told senior defense figures, according to the report.




Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday instructed his ministers to stop giving interviews on the situation in Syria, and specifically on the Assad regime’s reported use of chemical weapons.
Netanyahu’s strict orders came in response to deputy foreign minister Ze’ev Elkin‘s remarks on Army Radio Friday, in which he was seen to be calling on the international community to take control of and eliminate Syrian President Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal.


“There is a question here of when you set a red line, do you stand behind it?” Elkin said, referencing US President Barack Obama’s earlier  statement saying use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would cross a line and lead to a shift in US policy.
“If the Iranians will see that the red lines laid by the international community are flexible, then will they continue to progress?” Elkin questioned rhetorically.





(The title above is mine, as it reflects the second half of this article posted in Canada Free Press. The entire article is worth reading)


Sowell’s Conflict of Visions

The current fissure in American society is well-explained by Thomas Sowell in The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. This work examines how the elite class, aka the “anointed”, sells crises and their antidotes as a way of taking increasing control over the masses. These self-anointed elites have a vision of life which Sowell opposes with the “tragic vision.” The tragic vision is the basis for the Conservative, or Classical Liberal, movement which accepts life can never be perfected, only its opportunities maximized. The anointed vision is essentially progressive, and therefore utopian—and claims that the costs of perfecting the world are worth the outcome. Sowell says the tragic vision is realistic and can create a good world, whereas the vision of the anointed is essentially so unrealistic it is cruel and unhinged.

 A question which must be asked is, Why would a politician pretend there is a problem and then propose a very painful and expensive solution? The answer to this is disappointing to state. First, the more crises a politician successfully presides over, the more essential the person is seen as being. Second, certain political ideologies are based upon the notion that they are only a few elites in any society, and these have anoblesse oblige, a sacred duty, to care for others not fit for leadership. Third, another some politicians simply crave power over others, which is why they entered politics to begin with. And increasing their own power maximizes their enjoyment.
Sowell describes how the crises are presented that the elites use to promote their ideas. These are promoted as having the following characteristics:
  1. Assertions of a great danger to the whole society, a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious.
  2. An urgent need for action to avert impending catastrophe.
  3. A need for government to drastically curtail the dangerous behavior of the many, in response to the prescient conclusions of the few.
  4. A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either.
Sowell maps out how the essentially contrived crises and their failed responses play out:

A very distinct pattern has emerged repeatedly when policies favored by the anointed turn out to fail. This pattern typically has four stages:

STAGE 1. THE “CRISIS”: Some situation exists, whose negative aspects the anointed propose to eliminate. Such a situation is routinely characterized as a “crisis,” even though all human situations have negative aspects, and even though evidence is seldom asked or given to show how the situation at hand is either uniquely bad or threatening to get worse. Sometimes the situation described as a “crisis” has in fact already been getting better for years.

STAGE 2. THE “SOLUTION”: Policies to end the “crisis” are advocated by the anointed, who say that these policies will lead to beneficial result A. Critics say that these policies will lead to detrimental result Z. The anointed dismiss these latter claims as absurd and “simplistic,” if not dishonest.

STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: The policies are instituted and lead to detrimental result Z.

STAGE 4. THE RESPONSE: Those who attribute detrimental result Z to the policies instituted are dismissed as “simplistic” for ignoring the “complexities” involved, as “many factors” went into determining the outcome. The burden of proof is put on the critics to demonstrate to a certainty that these policies alone were the only possible cause of the worsening that occurred. No burden of proof whatever is put on those who had so confidently predicted improvement. Indeed, it is often asserted that things would have been even worse, were it not for the wonderful programs that mitigated the inevitable damage from other factors.

Conclusion

In a shocking number of scenarios, the elite class—whether in the form of the media, the academics, or in entertainment—presents a crisis to the society, and the “only way” the crisis can be solved. Invariably, the solution is worse than the often non-existent “crisis.”
One such example is currently Obamacare, and how this threatens to undermine the very best medical system in the world. And so it is with energy, where the petroleum sector has been attacked relentlessly as greedy, polluting, and focusing on rapidly diminishing supplies. Now one can only hope that Obama will stop pretending the “green economy” is more important than real oil for real Americans. Our horribly battered economy sure could use some good news after five years of ineffective DC fixes.
Posted by at 5 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)