Marco Rubio explains the difference between Reagan and Obama, and outlines a post-Obama foreign policy
Here's Marco Rubio speaking at CPAC on Thursday about the difference between Ronald Reagan and Barack Hussein Obama. In the speech, Rubio outlines a vision of a post-Obama foreign policy, and explains Obama's delusion that he can change the world with the force of his personality.
As an Israeli who earns a substantial portion of his income in dollars, I can tell you that the strength of the Israeli Shekel and the dollar's weakness has been killing me financially. We're now around NIS 3.50 to the dollar - we probably would be around NIS 4 to the dollar if the US economy weren't in such lousy shape (we've been as high as NIS 4.20 in the last few years).
Now, there's hope. You see, one of the reasons that the dollar and the US economy has been so weak is that the US Federal Reserve has been subsidizing the European banking system - and with it their bloated social welfare states - with virtually interest-free loans for the last six years. (Did you know that? I didn't). Now, that's going to stop. That means that some of the trillions of dollars floating around the world will find their way back to the US, US interest rates will hopefully drop, and the dollar will be strengthened.
By delaying foreign bank compliance with the stringent capital and borrowing requirements of section 165 of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(Dodd-Frank) imposed on American banks, the Fed was engaging in the
moral hazard of allowing Europe to borrow at virtually zero interest
from the Fed to fund its bloated social welfare states. Chair Yellen’s
actions mean the Fed is cutting off Europe and providing greater support
for U.S. borrowing.
People around the world often complain about the “exorbitant privilege” America enjoys from sponsoring the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Of the $1.25 trillion in circulation,
about $700 billion is held outside the United States. Foreign holdings
of the dollar essentially act as a perpetual, interest-free loan to the
U.S. government and force foreign businesses to lose money exchanging
their foreign currency into dollars. The privilege also reduces the
interest costs the American government pays on the $5.8 trillion of U.S. Treasury debt held by foreigners by one half percent. This privilege adds more than $120 billion to U.S. consumption each year.
However, with the privilege of sponsoring the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, America also bears “extraordinary risk”
in times of financial crisis. The Fed is morally expected to provide
liquidity at virtually zero interest rates to foreign banks as the
lender of last resort.
According to Fed data, at the peak of the
financial meltdown on Oct. 29, 2008, almost half of the $111 billion in
central bank emergency “discount window”
loans went to the U.S. subsidiaries of France/Belgium-based Dexia Bank
and German-based Depfa Bank. Although the parent banks of both of these
institutions were grossly insolvent, money borrowed from America’s Fed
was quickly wired off-shore to prevent imminent bankruptcy filings of
the institutions’ European parent banks.
The 2008-2009 financial meltdown was caused by what economists refer to as “moral hazard,”
a situation in which one party takes undue risks if it knows the
potential costs of the risk will be born by others. U.S. and European
banks knew the moral hazard of using risky valuation models to profit
from mortgage securitization was inappropriate, but they expected that
America’s Fed would bail them out of potential losses.
...
From Nov. 2008 through Jan. 2014 the Fed flooded the world with liquidity by engaging in three rounds of “quantitative easing” to buy $2.8 trillion in bank debt, mortgage-backed securities, and Treasury notes. During the same period, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England also engaged in another $1.4 trillion of quantitative easing.
Almost none of this liquidity was loaned to U.S. operating businesses, as private non-residential investment in America fell by 80%
as a percentage of the total GDP of the U.S. between 2007 and 2009.
Although capital spending has somewhat recovered, American business
investment is still at its lowest level as a share of GDP since 1947.
Most of the Fed’s cash appears to have gone to European Union (EU)
banks to cover loan losses and buy sovereign debt of EU countries. Bank
balance sheets in the EU are still leveraged at 25 to 35 times equity.
Despite the GDP of the EU nations since 2008 falling by .4%, their debt outstanding rose by 34%, from $10.3 trillion to $14.5 trillion.
Congress and financial regulators sought to avoid future moral hazard by passing Dodd-Frank’s Section 165 “Stress Testing”
requirements in 2012 to impose strict leverage limits on U.S financial
institutions with “consolidated assets of more than $10 billion.” Large
banks, brokers, and insurance companies were forced to raise $450
billion in capital and their leverage was cut from 18 times to less than
nine times, a 50% reduction.
Just 16 day after her confirmation, Chairman Yellen seems determined
to root out the expectation that the U.S. Federal Reserve will continue
the moral hazard of allowing excess risk taking in the expectation the
Fed will provide bail-outs as the sponsor of the dollar. President
Teddy Roosevelt said, “Speak
softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” New Federal Reserve
Chairman Janet Yellen on February 18th picked up her big stick and
softly announced the Fed is about to cut off its massive cash lifeline
keeping Europe afloat and will now concentrate on supporting the credit
needs of Americans.
The question remains: Where will the Europeans borrow money to avoid their own meltdown? I would like to suggest that they borrow money from Israel. After all, our economy has been the strongest in the world for the last 6-7 years. And we also have a bloated welfare state, although it's not quite as pricey as Europe's.
What's that, you say? Europe doesn't want to borrow money from us because our banks all operate in Judea and Samaria. Well good. Let them eat cake.
US cutting deal with Iran because... its troops aren't battle ready?
A deeply disturbing report from the Washington Free Beacon's Adam Kredo.
Senior House lawmakers sounded the alarm over what they say is the
U.S. military’s lack of preparedness for battle following a classified
briefing Thursday on how deepening budget cuts are impacting troop
readiness.
Continuing cuts to the nation’s defense budget have left U.S. troops
underprepared for battle, according to House Armed Services Committee
Chair Howard “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.) and Readiness Subcommittee
Chairman Rob Wittman (R., Va.), who briefed reporters following a
classified briefing with top military brass.
The briefing—one in a series that will be held over the next
weeks—was aimed at convincing members of Congress to fight against
further defense cuts as next year’s federal budgeting process gets
underway.
...
As billions of dollars are slashed from the defense budget under an
agreement known as sequestration, the military is finding itself unable to train troops and retain key personnel.
“One of the things that really concerns me, all of these cuts we’re
having, the first thing that gets hit is readiness,” said McKeon. “So
the troops that are preparing for Afghanistan, remember we are still at
war, are not getting the training they got a year ago.”
“And I’ve been to a lot of the bases and the training they really
focus on is IEDs,” or improvised explosive devises, McKeon added.
“That’s where we lose most of our lives, limbs over there. If they are
cut short on some of that training it puts them more at risk.
Lawmakers have a duty to ensure that the troops are ready to deploy at a moment’s notice.
Over the weekend, we got word that the Senate is going to postpone consideration of new sanctions against Iran to let the Obama-Kerry 'diplomacy' have a chance to work. (The sanctions could still be introduced via the defense authorization bill). Am I the only one out there who suspects that the Senate's lack of appetite for something that the Obama administration claims could bring a war with Iran closer might have something to do with the fact that US troops are so unprepared for battle?
After November 17, how will you collect fees from the US?
Are you an Israeli? Do you earn money from the US and have it wired to you? If you do, you probably receive that wire from JP Morgan Chase Bank. As of November 17, Chase says that it's getting out of the international wire transfer business. 'To better serve our customers,' of course. You don't think all that over-regulation from the Obama administration has anything to do with it, do you?
This is the letter that we received directly from Chase. This is not secondhand information.
The letter clearly states that beginning November 17:
• All international wire transfers will be disallowed.
•
All cash activity, including cash withdrawals and deposits, will be
halted at "$50,000 per statement cycle." How are businesses who deal
with a lot of cash (such as restaurants) supposed to function under such
restrictions?
Chase Bank representatives told Natural News "everything is fine"
We called and spoke with Chase Bank to ask why these capital controls were being implemented on November 17th.
Their
response was that these changes were being implemented "to better serve
our customers." They did not explain how blocking all international
wire transfers would "better serve" their customers, however.
Chase
Bank specifically denied any knowledge of problems with cash on hand,
or government debt or any such issue. They basically downplayed the
entire issue and had no answers for why capital controls were suddenly
being put into place.
The article goes on to claim that this is the first step in a massive US government default. In effect, the article claims, Chase is admitting that your money is not safe. Read the whole thing.
From my perspective, a large chunk of my income comes via wire transfers made through JP Morgan Chase, which is the correspondent bank for most Israeli banks.
First, a quick visit to the bank’s business banking website shows that international transfers are still available–you just have to pay up for them.
The bank’s basic business account, Chase Total Business Checking,
does not allow outgoing international wire transfers (it does allow them
to come in) and cash activity is indeed limited to $50,000 per month.
Cash activity means withdrawals and deposits. The account has a $10
monthly fee which is waived with a $1,500 minimum daily balance.
Need to withdraw or deposit more than $50k? You can but you’ll have to pay more in monthly fees to do so.
Upgrade to Chase’s Performance Business Checking and there’s no cash
activity limit. Plus, you get two domestic wires transfers per month at
no charge and international wires are available for an additional fee.
Of course, there’s a $20 monthly fee that’s waived if you can maintain
$50,000 balance.
Upgrade even higher to the Chase Platinum Business Checking and get
four outgoing wires per month at no charge and reduced pricing on
additional wires. Again, no cash activity limit here but the Premium
account has a whopping $95 monthly fee that is waived if deposit
balances are $100,000 or more.
But let’s get back to that basic business account. Chase says you can
still exceed the $50,000 cash activity limit but do it four times in a
rolling calendar year and you’ll get automatically upgraded to the next
level account.
So, no, there is no cash activity limit in the
Performance Business and Platinum level accounts but you’ll have to
maintain higher balances to avoid the larger monthly fees.
Sounds a lot like my Israeli bank, which just raised fees on my small business account.... But then, Israel is the only country in the world whose banks make the bulk of their income from household checking accounts.
Greetings from Boston - I will be here about a week.
As we went through passport control tonight, the woman in front me turned around when she finished and said 'they're not being paid.' I couldn't imagine this, but it's true - the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspector who took my passport next said that they are working without pay (and probably assuming they will be paid when the government gets re-funded).
When I told my host this story, he said that's precisely the problem. Everyone assumes that the government will be funded eventually, so they are picking and choosing what to close rather than facing the reality that the government is broke and that things really do have to be cut.
If this were to happen in Israel, we would have a different reality. The CBP would go on strike and shut down the airports until the government gave in. And if that didn't work 'properly,' the rest of the government would go on strike in sympathy.(The CBP going on strike would be enough to shut the airports because the rest of the airport workers would go on strike with them).
I'm not convinced that either system is better than the other or does a better job of forcing a confrontation with reality.
World complains about every apartment built in Israel but is silent on 'Palestinian' incitement
After a translation showed that 'Palestinian' radio told its listeners ten days ago that 'one day there will be no Israel,' Prime Minister Netanyahu's spokesman Mark Regev said on Monday that the world complains about every announcement of 'settlement' construction, but has nothing to say about 'Palestinian' incitement.
Regev’s comments,
just days before a second round of peace talks expected in
Jericho, were in response to comments made by an announcer on the Palestinian
Authority’s official Voice of Palestine, who said that “one day” there will be
no Israel and “Palestine will be Palestine again.”
Regev also cited a
drama running on Palestinian television which he said showed Palestinians –
after a Hamas-Fatah reconciliation – attacking a Jew and cutting off his ear-locks. “While this incitement is happening, we hear a deafening silence from
the international community,” he said.
“When Israel builds in areas which
everyone understands will remain part of Israel in a final-status agreement,
this is somehow perceived as a problem for peace. When Palestinians indoctrinate
their people with hatred for Israel, and thereby directly undermine
reconciliation, this is ignored.
“What is required of leadership at this
time is to prepare the public for respect and reconciliation. But what we
are seeing from the Palestinians is the opposite: continued demonization, stress
on maximalist goals and that Israel is an illegitimate creation that will
eventually disappear.”
The United States has responded by making another donation of $148 million to the 'Palestinian Authority' on behalf of the American taxpayer. And there are $4 billion more where that came from.
The aid was delivered “to help the Palestinian Authority avert
a budget crisis and to support US efforts to achieve a two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” a US official told The Jerusalem Post.
In
his memorandum to Secretary of State John Kerry issuing the waiver of
restriction of funds, President Barack Obama said that the aid “is important to
the national security interests of the Unites States.”
The waiver is in
line with previous waivers exercised by this and previous administrations, the
official said.
“Direct budget support to the PA is the most immediate and
efficient means of helping the PA maintain and build the foundations of a
viable, peaceful Palestinian state,” the official added.
“There has been
a recurring budget crisis in the PA, year in and year out, for as long as anyone
can remember,” said David Pollock, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute
for Near East Policy. “But even though the PA is short of cash, the Palestinian
economy in the West Bank is showing pretty good signs of life.”
Roughly
half of the PA budget is spent on Gaza, which provides the government with
little return but is required to continue its linkage with the troubled
Palestinian strip. The $148 million will likely be spent on PA salaries, Pollock
said.
Kerry's solution to world and US economic problems: Throw another $4 billion down the 'Palestinian' stinkhole
If all the money the Obama administration threw at unrealistic energy projects is called green slush, can we call this brown mud?
US Secretary of State John FN Kerry has now declared himself an economist. He has decided that the solution to the world's, the United States' and especially to Jordan's and Israel's (ironically, Israel has a stronger economy right now than either the US or Europe) economic problems is to throw another $4 billion down the 'Palestinian' stinkhole.
“The plan for the Palestinian economy is bigger and bolder and
more ambitious than anything proposed since Oslo more than 20 years ago,” said
Kerry as he spoke at the closing session of the World Economic Forum by the Dead
Sea in Jordan.
President Shimon Peres and Palestinian Authority President
Mahmoud Abbas also addressed the final session and sat next to each other in the
first row of the large auditorium as Kerry spoke.
This economic plan is
achievable and has the support of Abbas and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu,
Kerry said.
Quartet special envoy Tony Blair will head the initiative,
with the help of the international business community.
According to
Kerry, it will focus on developing the Palestinian private economy, a key
ingredient for economic independence.
If actualized, he said, it could
increase the Palestinian GDP by 50 percent over three years and cut unemployment
by two-thirds, to 8% down from 21%. It would also benefit the economies of
Israel and Jordan, Kerry said.
The effects could echo throughout the
region and could be used as an international model for applying investment to
make change, he said.
Investment in business, as well as in peace, could
totally change life on the ground for this area, Kerry said.
“This will
help build the future. Is this a fantasy? I do not think so,” he
said.
Feiglin: Immoral for Israel to take US aid, US may not survive Obama
Likud MK Moshe Feiglin has told The New American that it's immoral for Israel to take US foreign aid. But many of you who like that statement may not like his reasoning.
“I’m totally against this [US foreign] aid [to
Israel],” Feiglin told The New American, a relatively unknown
publication affiliated with far-right American politics. “It cannot be
when, first of all, the Americans are standing in line like two or three
miles in the snow to get a job. To get any kind of aid from America
when, economically, we are in a much, much better position doesn’t look
moral to me.”
Furthermore, American aid “is not in our
favor, not economically, not militarily, not in any way,” the MK told
the magazine’s Alex Newman. (He gave the interview last month in the Knesset,
but it only appeared on Monday.) “This aid serves psychological
purposes, not anything else. We are talking about 1.5 percent of our
income, of what Israel is producing — we can definitely deal without
it.”
Since World War II, Israel is the largest
recipient of US foreign aid, having received a total of $118 billion,
most of it in the form of military assistance. Currently, Washington
supports Israel with about $3 billion per year.
Newman asked Feiglin about former Republican
presidential candidate Ron Paul’s argument that the US administration is
using the aid “to obtain leverage over the Israeli government when
Israel should be thinking about its own interests rather than what
Washington thinks.”
Feiglin responded, “I 100 percent agree.”
So is Feiglin a Ron Paul supporter? I think he'd say that's none of our business. On the other hand, he certainly doesn't have a lot of confidence in the Obama administration's stewardship of the American economy.
“I don’t know what’s going to happen with
America — I’m more worried about America than about Israel,” he told the
magazine. “I know it sounds maybe a little bit crazy. However, we are a
nation of 3,300 years. We have our little ups and downs over our
history, but it seems like physically we are stronger than ever.
“History shows that big empires fall, and it
doesn’t look like America today is on the rise,” he continued. “So
there’s more — from my historical understanding — there’s more to worry
about now for America than about Israel. I think — and again, excuse me
for saying so — I think America needs Israel not any less than Israel
needs America.”
Feiglin said he is aware that his comments
sound “a bit funny” — though not because the world’s last remaining
superpower is also the world’s strongest economy, but because the US has
so many more inhabitants than Israel. “But even though I’m aware of the
numbers, I’m still saying what I’m saying because I think that Israel
carries moral weight, and also technological and strategic and
territorial weight, that is much bigger than its size.”
Priorities, man, priorities! With the United States trillions of dollars in debt and facing a forced budget cutback through sequester, President Hussein Obama has increased the amount of money that the United States is throwing into the black hole called the United Nations (Hat Tip: Bad Blue).
So, as the Federal government continues
to cut White House self-guided tours, vital military spending, air
traffic control towers, and now cutting 6 percent from the State
Department’s budget, the state Department is now announcing that it will
increase spending on the United Nations next year. The spending
increase to the United Nations will be roughly $3.6 billion in 2014.
But don’t expect that to be the final
spending increase dollar amount, as Fox News reports that this is not
“the final tally of Obama Administration support, as hundreds of
millions of dollars in U.S. development, health and other funds are
usually channeled through U.N. agencies and institutions — with the U.N.
agencies taking with the U.N. agencies taking administrative fees as
part of the deal. The most recent tally on the website of the White
House Management and Budget website, for example, lists support for the
U.N. at $7.7 billion — in 2010.”
Again, what purpose does the United Nations serve?
None that I can tell, except providing a forum for Jew haters.
The overall goal of the program is to build more effective and
competent Palestinian Authority (PA) public institutions that are
accountable to the public and respond to citizens’ needs. The objectives
of this activity are to support the Palestinian Authority (PA) public
sector reform efforts by assisting the PA to strengthen the operational
and management capability of key ministries and public sector
institutions to govern more effectively; improve mechanisms of service
provision; strengthen legal and policy formulation processes; enhance
the performance of targeted PA institutions, and bolster accountability
and oversight mechanisms. This program will support key elements of the
PA’s reform and development agenda.
CNN host Wolf Blitzer said that the network invited a White House official to debate Woodward on-air, but the White House declined.
"It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling
reporters, 'You're going to regret doing something that you believe
in,'" Woodward said.
"I think they're confused," Woodward said of the White House's pushback on his reporting.
The White House aide who Woodward said threatened him was Gene Sperling, the director of the White House Economic Council, BuzzFeed's Ben Smith reported.
Huh? What's that about?
Let's go to the videotape.
All I can say is, thank you Bob Woodward for proving that the phrase 'honest reporter' need not be an oxymoron, and thanks also for pointing out that stopping Iran cannot be dependent on a budget.
Well, Dr. Ben Carson did say in his speech that he thought doctors should get involved in politics. Carson was blasted on CNN on Sunday morning by J Street Jan Schakowsky (D-Il).
Schakowsky accused Carson of using political correctness, rather than
fighting it: “Well, I think that there’s a political correctness that
he was trying to use to appeal to a conservative audience,” she said,
shaking her head. She went on to criticize Carson for making a
“political speech” in front of Obama and in a specifically religious
context.
I think it’s really--not really an appropriate place to make this
kind of political speech, and to invoke God as support for that kind of
view. But I think of most of all the kind of message that he was giving
shows a real empathy gap with where the American people are right now,
and I think it’s reflective of where many of the Republicans and Tea
Parties are right now, that we need to have an economy that works for
everyone.
In his address, Carson had specifically avoided taking a partisan
point of view, noting that the American bald eagle needed both a “right
wing” and a “left wing” to take flight.
Go back and watch the Carson video and notice that Michelle Obama was applauding at the end of the speech. Maybe Michelle didn't get it? Nah, that can't be. She's a genius....
Awesome speech: Dr. Ben Carson's politically incorrect speech
Dr. Ben Carson is the chief pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins University Hospital in Baltimore. He gave this speech at a national prayer breakfast last week. It's an awesome speech, but President Obama, who was present, did not look pleased. Especially beyond the 18-minute mark....
Experts estimate that the specter of an Iranian nuclear weapon would be an economic disaster.
Top foreign policy experts writing in today’s Wall Street Journal
highlighted the threat posed by a nuclear Iran to global financial
markets. The article was written by Charles Robb, Dennis Ross and
Michael Makovsky who led a Bipartisan Policy Center task force that
examined the energy-related costs of inaction against Iran. They
concluded that “A nuclear Iran would raise the likelihood of
instability, nuclear proliferation, terrorism and war.”
To quantify this price impact, the task force “identified five
scenarios that an Iran with nuclear weapons would make more likely:
domestic instability in Saudi Arabia, the destruction of Saudi energy
facilities, an Iran-Saudi nuclear exchange, an Iran-Israel nuclear
exchange, and the lapse of sanctions against Iran.”
The task force concluded that even if none of these risks came to pass, the very specter would cause the following disruptions:
• Oil prices could rise by 10% to 25% in
the first year (or $11 to $27 more per barrel). As instability and
tensions remain high, so will prices, even rising as much as 30% to 50%
($30 to $55 per barrel) within three years.
• Consequently, gasoline prices could
jump 10% to 20% in the first year. Within three years, the cost of gas
could rise more than 30% (or more than $1.40 per gallon). Such
sustained price increases would have a pronounced negative impact on
the U.S. economy.
• U.S. gross domestic product could fall
by about 0.6% in the first year—costing the economy some $90
billion—and by up to 2.5% (or $360 billion) by the third year. This is
enough, at current growth rates, to send the country into recession.
• The unemployment rate could also rise
by 0.3 percentage points in the first year and by nearly 1% two years
later, resulting in some 1.5 million more Americans becoming jobless.
I'm sure President Hussein Obama is already planning how not to let this crisis go to waste.
On Monday, US 'intelligence analysts' issued a report that promised a 'Palestinian state' by 2030 (without a resolution over who owns Jerusalem), but also promised that China would have a larger economy than the US and that an independent state of Kurdistan would exist by the same date. Before you get too excited about this, please keep in mind that the report was issued by the United States' National Intelligence Council, the group that President Obama wanted to turn over to the tender loving care of Chas Freeman, and that its findings, to put it mildly, are highly politicized. This is Martin Kramer:
One prediction (p. 71) is particularly striking, touching as it does on the drivers of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world:
Although al-Qa’ida and others have focused on the United
States [as] a clear enemy, the appeal of the United States as the “great
enemy” is declining. The impending withdrawal of US forces from Iraq
and decreases in US forces in Afghanistan help to reduce the extent to
which terrorists can draw on the United States as a lightning rod for
anger. Soon, US support for Israel could be the last remaining major
focus of Muslim anger.
It’s a peculiar assessment. After all, when al-Qa’ida attacked the
United States on 9/11, there were no US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The 9/11 attacks undoubtedly did resonate in the Muslim world, and that
couldn’t have been the result of an American boots-on-the-ground
presence in the region. So what drove anti-Americanism back then? Is
there a suggestion here that US support for Israel was already the
“major focus”? What about American support for authoritarian regimes? We
are told again and again how deeply Muslims have resented such support,
and they could resent it even more in 2030, should the oil-saturated
monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf last that long.
And
what happened to the assessments in past reports, which cited
“globalization” as the source of Muslim anger against the West in
general, and the United States in particular? The report
issued in 2000, anticipating 2015, offered this: “Popular resentment of
globalization as a Western intrusion will be widespread. Political
Islam in various forms will be an attractive alternative for millions of
Muslims throughout the region, and some radical variants will continue
to be divisive social and political forces.” Right on the mark, as
evidenced by events unfolding before our eyes. Why isn’t such
“intrusion” likely to continue to inflame the Muslim world?
...
Where Toynbee erred, of course, was in his assumption that the West
could simply “move out of the light,” thus liberating those in its
shadow. No doubt there are still those who believe that if only we were
to stand aside or step back, our profile would diminish, and with it the
resentment against us. It was the historian and political thinker Elie
Kedourie—a relentless critic of Toynbee as historian and seer—who added the necessary refinement.
In his view, the damaging effect of the West upon the East had nothing to do with what the West did. It was an inevitable effect of what the West was,
and no amount of sidestepping or backtracking could mitigate the
consequences. The West, Kedourie asserted, “cannot help being what it
is. By the very fact of its existence, it was a destabilizing force for
the Middle East.” And he employed a different allegory: “Someone who has
influenza is not really responsible for the fact that someone else
catches his disease.” The West could not be blamed for being what it is:
the carrier of an aggressive virus that ravages all traditions.
So
the suggestion in the NIC report, that Muslim anger against the United
States might soon be reduced to a kernel of resentment over US support
for Israel, is a species of wishful thinking. The United States will
continue to infect the Muslim world, even if its willingness or ability
to project hard power declines. The so-called “Arab Spring,” which is so
often hailed as the product of indigenous processes, is in fact an
inflammation produced by the most contagious of all viruses: the idea of
freedom, now linked inseparably to American-style democracy. As long as
Muslim societies remain internally divided over freedom and democracy,
there will be governments and factions that will stoke hatred of
America. In some places, American flags will be waived, but in others
American embassies will be burned. In either case, the United States
will be regarded, favorably or unfavorably, as the grinding wheel of
change in the world.
There is another odd assertion in the report (p. 75):
Resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have
dramatic consequences for the region over the next two decades. For
Israel, a permanent resolution to the conflict could open the door to
regional relationships unthinkable today. The end of Palestinian
conflict would provide a strategic setback to Iran and its resistance
camp and over time undermine public support for militant groups such as
Hizballah and Hamas.
This is the myth of linkage, and it echoes almost precisely a claim made by President Obama when he was still a candidate in 2008. “All these issues are connected,” Obama said.
If we can solve the Israeli-Palestinian process, then
that will make it easier for Arab states and the Gulf states to support
us when it comes to issues like Iraq and Afghanistan. It will also
weaken Iran, which has been using Hamas and Hezbollah as a way to stir
up mischief in the region.
This thesis (the theatrical NIC version reads like “New Middle East”
circa 1995) seems less persuasive with each passing month, as many other
“dramatic consequences” unfold, eclipsing or competing with the
long-running Israel-Palestine show. The reassertion of linkage here is
thoroughly political. It is not a measured assessment, but it is the
sort of statement that stands a chance of being echoed by a high
administration official, if not by the President himself. And it draws
rebuttals from people like me—which helps to keep the NIC, a poor cousin
to the agencies that deal in hard intelligence, in the limelight and on
a budget line.
I see a lot of wishful thinking here and a lot - specifically things like the decline in American power in the world - which could be reversed if there is a different President before 2030.
Apparently under pressure from Boeing Corp. (which announced massive layoffs from its defense division right after last week's US election), Israel Aircraft Industries has agreed to resume manufacture of spy systems for the Turkish Air Force's Boeing 737's (Hat Tip: Asher G).
Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd. (IAI) (TASE: ARSP.B1)
unit ELTA Systems has decided to restart the manufacture of electronic
measures systems the Turkish Air Force's Boeing’s 737 early warning and
control Systems spy aircraft, "informed sources" have told Turkey's
"Hurriyet Daily News."
The newspaper added that the decision paves
the way for the release of Boeing’s long-delayed four 737 planes, which
were built for a total of $1.6 billion. The Turkish daily also
speculated that the decision to supply the critical devices may also
mean an end to Israel's two-year defense exports ban for Turkey. The
sources said that with the decision to continue production recently, the
manufacture of a third plane approached completion. ELTA had finished
the production of the EMS systems for the first two aircraft years ago.
"Hurriyet
Daily News" recounted that in 2002, Turkey’s defense procurement
agency, ordered four 737-700 AEW&C aircraft from Boeing, ground
radar and control systems, plus ground control segments for mission crew
training, mission support and maintenance support. Under the agreement
the four aircraft were supposed to be released in 2006. But the
integration of the planes took much longer. ELTA is building the EMS
systems for four aircraft and its Turkish systems are expected to cost
more than $100 million.
The ELTA decision follows Boeing’s
efforts to urge the Israeli company to restart this Turkish
manufacturing. Elta is the single producer of the EMS systems for
Boeing’s 737 aircraft. The 737 Boeing AEW&C aircraft are to be used
as part of Turkey’s NATO capabilities.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
