Showing posts with label israeli. Show all posts
Showing posts with label israeli. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

NEWS,26.06.2013



Marcus: Global recovery years away


If things do not get any worse it will probably still take a number of years before the world is back to more normal growth and output gaps are fully closed‚ Reserve Bank governor Gill Marcus cautioned on Tuesday.

Speaking at a FM Top Companies awards function‚ she said there would probably be at least one or two more forms of the crisis before it could safely be said that recovery was sustainable.

“The economic environment is a difficult one. The world is in its sixth year of crisis: a crisis that has repeatedly mutated‚ shifting its epicentre from a sub-prime crisis to systemic banking crisis; a liquidity‚ fiscal deficit and sovereign debt crisis. Measures taken to address each of these elements have had unintended consequences. Austerity measures have contributed to an unemployment crisis of immense proportions‚ particularly for the young.

“There will probably be at least one or two more forms of the crisis before we can safely say that recovery is sustainable. And even then‚ as we can see in the United States where there are signs of recovery‚ the measures that are outlined to be taken very cautiously and with considerable conditionality‚ such as a tapering off of Quantitative Easing‚ have also had unintended consequences‚” Marcus said.

As had been seen in recent days and weeks‚ the exchange rates of many emerging market economies had been impacted negatively by an outflow of capital. This development could well mark the start of a new mutation of the ongoing global crisis‚ she added.

“If things do not get any worse it will probably still take a number of years before the world is back to more normal growth and output gaps are fully closed. Even then‚ there is debate about whether that new normal would be at a lower rate of growth than in the past. All in all‚ it is a very uncertain and difficult decade for individuals‚ companies and countries‚” Marcus said.

South Africa’s weak first quarter annualised growth rate of 0.9 per cent was‚ to some extent‚ consistent with what was seen happening globally and in other emerging markets and these developments had‚ in part‚ contributed towards a weaker rand exchange rate. But domestic factors had also contributed.

“These have to do with lost production in the mining sector‚ instability caused by violent and often illegal strike action and persistent capacity constraints in infrastructure‚ electricity in particular‚” Marcus noted.

The source of this vulnerability‚ she pointed out‚ was primarily a large current account deficit‚ a high budget deficit‚ rising public debt and relatively low foreign exchange reserves as well as high household indebtedness and inflation close to the top of the target range - all suggesting limited room for fiscal or monetary support.

Berlin hails US ties 50yrs after JFK speech


Germany hailed the endurance of transatlantic ties on Wednesday on the 50th anniversary of US president John F Kennedy's stirring Cold War declaration "Ich bin ein Berliner", with celebrations across the reunited city.

Ahead of the main commemoration ceremony at the old
West Berlin town hall where JFK addressed 450 000 people in 1963, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said the historic speech remained "unforgettable for us Germans".

"Berlin was a divided city, the Cold War had separated Germans along the Wall," he said in a statement. "President Kennedy gave Berliners new hope in difficult times and all Germans new confidence."

Westerwelle said last week's visit to Berlin by President Barack Obama, in which he borrowed tropes from Kennedy's speech to call for stronger transatlantic co-operation on global crises, showed that the spirit of Kennedy's pledge was alive and well.

"Shared history has become vibrant German-American friendship, which in a world of fundamental change is as important today as it was then," he said.

"In his speech at the
Brandenburg Gate, President Obama underlined the partnership of values that binds us together which Kennedy had hailed. That is a good foundation to weather the challenges of 21st century globalisation together."

‘Ich bin ein Berliner’

Kennedy's eight-hour visit on
26 June 1963 came at a critical stage of the Cold War, and Berlin was on the front line.

It was only a year since the
United States and Soviet Union nearly went to war in the Cuban missile crisis, and two years after East Germany's communist regime erected the Berlin Wall, cleaving the city in two.

In an electrifying 10-minute address, Kennedy gave Berliners what they wanted to hear: a condemnation of the Wall and a promise that the free world stood by them.

"Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us," the defiant president said, in a firm rejection of communist appeasement.

At the end, Kennedy uttered the immortal words: "All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of
Berlin and therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words 'Ich bin ein Berliner' [I am a Berliner]."

His vow, just five months before he would be assassinated in
Dallas, was greeted with rapturous applause from the crowds of Berliners thronging the square.

Democrat wins US Senate election


Longtime Democratic US Representative Edward Markey defeated Republican political newcomer Gabriel Gomez in a special election on Tuesday for the state's US Senate seat long held by John Kerry.

Markey, aged 66, won the early backing of Kerry and much of the state's Democratic political establishment, which was set on avoiding a repeat of the stunning loss it suffered three years ago, when Republican state Senator Scott Brown upset Democratic state Attorney General Martha Coakley in the election to replace the late Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy.

Gomez, a 47-year-old businessman and former Navy Seal, positioned himself as a moderate and
Washington outsider who would challenge partisan gridlock, contrasting himself with Markey, who was first elected to the US House of Representatives in 1976.

Markey defeated Gomez by a margin of 55% to 45%. His victory does not change the balance of power in the Senate since Governor Deval Patrick had appointed a Democrat to fill the seat for several months until the special election. There are currently 52 Democrats and two independents who caucus with the majority in the 100-seat Senate.

Tuesday's contest served as a reminder that President Barack Obama has vowed to play a more aggressive political role for his party through next year's mid-term elections with huge stakes for his legacy and final-term agenda. Democrats face several competitive Senate contests in less-friendly terrain in 2014, when their grip on the Senate majority will be tested.

The White House, led by Obama himself, invested heavily in the Massachusetts' election, fuelled largely by widespread fear of another Brown-like surprise.

Moral victory

"The people of
Massachusetts can be proud that they have another strong leader fighting for them in the Senate, and people across the country will benefit from Ed's talent and integrity," Obama said in a statement on Tuesday night.

Republicans claimed a moral victory of sorts, having forced Democrats to deploy their biggest political stars in an election in which Markey enjoyed significant advantages in Democrat-friendly
Massachusetts. Markey's victory follows personal visits by Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Bill Clinton.

Markey, who declared victory two hours after the polls closed, ticked off a slew of legislative priorities. He said he wanted to help spark a "green energy revolution", protect seniors, boost job growth in
Massachusetts and ensure young people can attend college without shouldering enormous debt.

Gomez said he called Markey to congratulate him and wished him "nothing but the best". He said he'd waged the campaign with honour and integrity but was heavily outspent by Democrats in the five-month election.

"Not every fight is a fair fight," Gomez said in his concession speech. "Sometimes you face overpowering force. We were massively overspent. We went up against literally the whole national Democratic Party. And all its allies."

Markey outspent Gomez throughout the race, and Republicans were unable to match a well-oiled Democratic field organisation in an election that saw relatively light turnout in much of the heavily Democratic state.

Kerry left the Senate this year after being confirmed as
US secretary of state. Markey will fill out the remainder of Kerry's term, which expires in January 2015, meaning that another Senate election will be held a year from November.

Though Markey has a lengthy career in Congress, he will become the state's junior senator to Elizabeth Warren, who has been in office less than six months after defeating Brown in November.

Snowden spends 4th day at Moscow airport


US intelligence leaker Edward Snowden on Wednesday spent a fourth day at a Moscow airport with his onward travel plans still a mystery after Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected calls for his extradition to the United States.

The United States told Russia it has a "clear legal basis" to expel Snowden but anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks, which helped organise his flight from Hong Kong, said he risks being stuck in Russia "permanently".

Meanwhile
Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro, who by coincidence is expected in Moscow next week for an energy summit, said Caracas would consider any asylum request from Snowden just as Ecuador is doing.

In his first comments on the chase for the former contractor that has captivated world attention, Putin on Tuesday confirmed that Snowden had arrived in
Moscow but said he had never left the airport's transit zone.

"He arrived as a transit passenger... He did not cross the state border," Putin said at a news conference in
Finland late on Tuesday. "For us, this was completely unexpected," he added.

"Mr Snowden is a free man, the sooner he selects his final destination point, the better for us and for himself," he said.

Travel plans unknown

Snowden who leaked revelations of massive
US surveillance programmes to the media, had been expected to board a flight for Cuba on Monday, reportedly on his way to seek asylum in Ecuador.

But he never did and Putin hinted that his onward travel plans were still unknown. His
US passport has been cancelled but WikiLeaks says he left Hong Kong with a refugee document supplied by Ecuador.

Snowden's extended stay in Moscow has prompted comparisons with the Tom Hanks hit film The Terminal about a man living in an airport, while British gambling website William Hill has opened betting on his final destination.

"Cancelling Snowden's passport and bullying intermediary countries may keep Snowden permanently in
Russia," WikiLeaks said in a statement on Twitter.

The
US urged Russia to use all means to expel Snowden, who arrived at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport on a flight from Hong Kong on Sunday despite the US issuing a request for his arrest in China.

"While we do not have an extradition treaty with
Russia, there is nonetheless a clear legal basis to expel Mr Snowden," National Security spokesperson Caitlin Hayden said.

Debriefing denied


Hayden said that Snowden could be expelled on the basis of his travel documents and the pending charges against him. However Putin insisted that
Russia could not extradite Snowden as it has no extradition agreement with the United States.

Putin said he would prefer not to deal with cases such as those of Snowden and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London to avoid allegations of sexual assault in Sweden.

"It's the same as shearing a piglet: There's a lot of squealing and not much wool," he said.

But Putin dismissed speculation that Snowden a potential intelligence goldmine was being purposely held up at the airport to be interrogated by Russian spies.

WikiLeaks also denied he was being debriefed by the Russian security services and confirmed that British activist Sarah Harrison from its legal team "is escorting him at all times".

Snowden had been expected to travel on with the state carrier Aeroflot on Monday to
Havana, but never appeared on the flight. He has not been spotted in the airport, located north-west of Moscow, and is speculated to be inside a capsule hotel in the transit zone.

There is no scheduled flight from Sheremetyevo to
Havana on Wednesday. The RIA Novosti quoted unidentified sources as saying that Snowden had also booked on Tuesday's flight to Havana but the reservation had been cancelled a few hours before take-off.

'Ill-considered pressure'

The Interfax news agency cited an unnamed source in Snowden's entourage claiming he is in limbo because his passport was cancelled by the
US.

"Snowden's American passport is annulled, he has no other ID with him. Therefore he is obliged to stay in the Sheremetyevo transit zone, since he can neither enter
Russia nor buy a ticket," the source said.

Snowden abandoned his high-paying intelligence contractor job in
Hawaii and went to Hong Kong on 20 May to begin issuing a series of leaks on the NSA gathering of phone call logs and internet data, triggering concern from governments around the world.

Hong Kong, a special administrative region under Chinese rule that has maintained its own British-derived legal system, said the US government request to arrest him did not fully comply with its legal requirements.

But White House spokesperson Jay Carney lashed out at
Beijing, saying its failure to "honour extradition obligations" had dealt a "serious setback" to efforts to build trust with new President Xi Jinping.

The United States is applying "ill-considered pressure" that will only serve to "bring Moscow and Beijing closer together", Alexei Pushkov, head of the Russian lower house of parliament's foreign affairs committee, wrote on Twitter on Wednesday.

The dispute risks sharpening tensions between
Washington and Moscow as well as Beijing when they are struggling to overcome differences to end the conflict in Syria.

Hardliner picked as head of Netanyahu party


An Israeli deputy minister and leader of the radical right in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud has been elected as the head of the party's presidency, reports said on Wednesday.

The election of 42-year-old Danny Danon as Likud president during an initial party vote on Tuesday night enabled him to score political points against the premier, Israeli media said.

The role is largely symbolic, but belies the growing influence of the hardline settler lobby within the rightwing party.

Although Netanyahu will remain as head of the party, members will on Sunday choose who will preside over three key institutions the central committee, the Likud bureau, and the secretariat - in a vote likely to highlight exactly how much of a threat the premier faces from party rebels.

Danon, who serves as deputy defence minister, is widely expected to be voted in as chairperson of the central committee, which decides on all the key policy issues.

Leadership of the Likud bureau, which sets the party's ideology, is expected to go to deputy foreign minister Zeev Elkin, another party rebel.

Wider revolt

And one of the frontrunners for the chairpersonship of the Likud secretariat is Miri Regev, another rebel from the party's far right.

Danon sparked uproar this month when he came out against a Palestinian state a position firmly at odds with Netanyahu's public stance on the issue.

"If Secretary Kerry, whose efforts we support, were to pitch a tent halfway between here and Ramallah - that's 15 minutes away driving time - I'm in it, I'm in the tent," Netanyahu told the Washington Post last week in reference to US Secretary of State John Kerry.

"And I'm committed to stay in the tent and negotiate for as long as it takes to work out a solution of peace and security between us and the Palestinians."

But Danon said the government was not serious about it and that moves to create one would be opposed by most of the coalition.

Netanyahu appears to be facing a wider revolt on the two-state solution, after Israeli ministers began openly expressing their opposition to the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

Possibility of quitting


Analyst Yossi Verter said in Haaretz newspaper that "Netanyahu now finds himself in the worst possible situation for a party chairman: He's not a player. He doesn't count".

Commentators pointed out the prime minister had not even presented his candidacy for president of the party at the Likud conference, as Danon's victory seemed assured.

Faced with this opposition, Netanyahu could even quit Likud, as did former premier Ariel Sharon, who exited the same party to create the centrist Kadima in 2005, wrote Verter.

"It's hard to know what he's thinking: Either he has lost his fighting spirit and is giving up, or in his heart, he knows that in the next election, he won't be running at the head of this party," he added.

Kerry: Leaders serious on peace talks


Israeli and Palestinian leaders are both committed to reviving peace talks, US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Wednesday, but he acknowledged that progress on the long-stalled negotiations would be difficult.
Israeli-Palestinian talks broke down in late 2010 in a dispute over construction of Jewish settlements on occupied West Bank land that Palestinians want as part of their future state.
Kerry, who held separate talks with both sides in May, said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas wanted the peace process to move forward. This would be Kerry's fifth attempt to restart talks.
"I believe they believe the peace process is bigger than any one day or one moment, or certainly more important to their countries than some of their current political challenges," he told a news conference in Kuwait with Foreign Minister Sheikh Sabah Khaled al-Sabah.
"That is why both of them have indicated a seriousness of purpose. I would not be here now if I didn't have the belief this is possible," he said.
Kerry said he did not want to set any deadlines for the peace process but added that there needed to be progress before the UN General Assembly in September.


Saturday, March 2, 2013

NEWS,01.AND 02.03.2013



Senators Push Promise to Support Israeli Strikes on Iran

 

New legislation introduced by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) calls for the U.S. to provide military, economic, and diplomatic support for Israel should its government decide to launch military strikes on Iran. The measure would effectively signal that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can decide not just whether to enter Israel into war with Iran, but whether the United States enters such a war. It comes as tentative diplomatic progress was reported from negotiations involving the U.S. and Iran.The unprecedented measure is being unveiled as part of the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference this weekend in Washington, DC, that will bring thousands of the group's supporters to push the measure on Capitol Hill. The group will also support a new sanctions bill in the House that could authorize the U.S. to sanction companies, including in Europe and Asia, for any commercial dealings with Iran. That measure has raised concerns about further exacerbating medicine shortages impacting the people of Iran.The Graham resolution is framed as a non-binding measure aimed at encouraging the President to implement and escalate sanctions on Iran. But the final clause "urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence."Senator Graham has made clear that "self defense" can be defined as preventive war based on redlines that Netanayahu has established that contradict President Obama's stated policy.Graham initially announced the resolution during the 2012 Election campaign as a challenge to President Obama's comments that he "has Israel's back" and said his resolution would clarify that "in the event Israel had to take preventive action, we would have their back" in terms of military, financial, and diplomatic support.In discussing his planned resolution, he made clear that Israel has a different set of military capabilities than the U.S., but that his measure would compel the U.S. to take action based on Tel Aviv's window instead of Washington's. "There are two different clocks here, the Washington clock and the Tel Aviv clock...The Israelis are not going to let the window close on their ability to slow down this program. They're going to act... They're going to control their own destiny."The measure may raise a red flag for the Pentagon, which has been concerned that Israel could draw the U.S. into a war against the authority of the President and his military leadership. Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey explicitly warned last year that he does not want the U.S. to be "complicit" in an Israeli strike. The Pentagon also conducted a simulation last March that determined and Israeli strike on Iran would draw in the U.S. and leave hundreds of Americans dead in the immediate aftermath. The Pentagon leaked the report to the press, in a move widely viewed as seeking to stop Netanyahu from pushing the U.S. into war.Military leaders from both Israel and the United States have warned in dire terms that strikes on Iran would only delay the nuclear program and make it more likely that Iran would build a weapon. Former Joint Chiefs Chairman James Cartwright recently stated that such action would require "tens of years" of military occupation by the U.S. Others have noted that such action would require as many as one million troops. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said "such an attack would make a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable."The Graham-Menendez resolution also "reiterates that the policy of the United States is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon capability and to take such action as may be necessary to implement this policy." However, this is not the policy of the United States. AIPAC last year pushed measures in Congress to attempt to change that, and managed to pass them in both chambers. But the measure never was sent to the White House and did not become policy. The President pointedly stated at AIPAC's convention last year that preventing nuclear weapon acquisition, not capability, was his policy. That message has apparently been ignored.

Hugo Chavez Chemotherapy: Venezuela Says President Receiving Treatment For Cancer Again

 

President Hugo Chavez has been receiving chemotherapy since recovering from a severe respiratory infection in mid-January and "continues his battle for life," his vice president said late Friday.Vice President Nicolas Maduro suggested the chemotherapy was continuing in the government's first mention of it as among treatments that Venezuela's cancer-stricken president has received since his Dec. 11 cancer surgery in Cuba. Maduro made the disclosure after a Mass for Chavez in a new chapel outside the military hospital where authorities say the socialist leader has been since being flown back to Caracas on Feb. 18.The vice president quoted Chavez as saying he decided to return to Venezuela because he was entering "a new phase" of "more intense and tough" treatments and wanted to be in Caracas for them.Maduro's offering of the most detailed rundown to date of Chavez's post-operative struggle came hours after an accusation by opposition leader Henrique Capriles that the government has repeatedly lied about Chavez's condition."We'll see how they explain to the country in the (coming) days all the lies they've been telling about the president's situation," Capriles, whom Chavez defeated in Oct. 7 elections, said in a tweet.Chavez has not been seen nor heard from since going to Cuba for his fourth cancer surgery, except for a set of "proof of life" photos released Feb. 15 while he was still in Havana.Chavez first revealed an unspecified cancer in the pelvic region in June 2011, and reported undergoing radiation treatment and chemotherapy after earlier operations.The government has sent mixed signals on Chavez's condition, although Maduro has said several times that Chavez was battling for his life. He repeated that Friday, and also accused opponents of spreading rumors about Chavez's health to destabilize the nation.Maduro, Chavez's chosen successor, said his boss' condition was extremely delicate over New Year's as he battled a respiratory infection that required a tracheal tube."In mid-January he was improving, the infection could be controlled, but he continued with problems of respiratory insufficiency. Afterward, there was a general improvement, and the doctors along with President Chavez decided to initiate complementary treatments," Maduro said."You know what the complementary treatments are, right? They are chemotherapy that is applied to patients after operations."Cancer specialists couldn't be reached immediately for comment on Maduro's announcement. But oncologists have said that chemotherapy is sometimes given to slow a cancer's progression, ease symptoms and extend a patient's life.The opposition says Chavez should either be sworn in for the new term he won in the election or declare himself incapable and call a new election. The constitution says he should have been sworn in on Jan. 10, but Venezuela's Supreme Court said it was OK to wait.Earlier Friday, Maduro accused the Spanish newspaper ABC and Colombia's Caracol network of spreading lies about Chavez's condition.ABC said without specifying its source that Chavez's cancer had spread to a lung. It said he had been moved to an island compound in the Caribbean.Chavez's son-in-law, Science Minister Jorge Arreaza, said on state TV that Chavez continues "to fight hard and is in the military hospital, as peaceful as he could be, with his doctors, with his family."

Italy's Democratic Triumph


Italy's most recent election is further proof that democracy works.The election in which Italian citizens ignored the 'sensible' center parties, gave a large mass of votes to a political coalition recently organized by a comedian. The election which created a divided government that has virtually no chance of forming a stable coalition. The election which has been roundly panned by pundits from The Atlantic to The Economist, from the Brookings Institution to The Daily Show. The election which caused a nose-dive in international markets. Yes, that election. As bad as it sounds on the surface, it was, in fact, a great triumph of democracy.You see, there is a reason that so many Italians voted for a protest party. They are in the midst of a terrible economic recession. For years, they have been told by European Union economic planners that the way out of this recession is to implement a series of austerity measures and as the recession gets worse each year, so must the austerity measures. These austerity measures, including tax increases and cuts to social services, are extremely unpopular. And just as importantly, the Italians feel that these measures are being imposed upon them from the outside; that the EU has successfully bullied the two major political parties in Italy to continue along the austerity path, despite the unpopularity of the austerity agenda.The political equation in Italy at the time of the election was: high unemployment  widespread belief that government is ignoring the needs of the citizenry public perception that things are only getting worse. In many countries that adds up to rioting, perhaps even a constitutional crisis or revolution, maybe some crackdowns by a government that gets nervous to hold onto its power and starts to fear that its citizenry will get too far out of hand. But instead, the Italians took their frustration, they went to the ballot box, and they voted. That's a triumph of democracy if there ever was one.Many pundits are criticizing the Italians for voting for the 'wrong' people. The pundits seem to think that the Italians ought to have voted in a way that has the least impact on international markets. But that's absurd. The Italian people don't answer to Wall Street. Instead, the Italian government answers to the Italian people a people who are angry, increasingly unemployed, and feeling ignored by the powers that control their fate. In the real world, the alternative to this "chaotic" election isn't a business-friendly utopia; it's weeks of rioting shutting down Rome, or even worse, the Arab Spring. So who cares if the Italian people voted for the 'wrong' parties? Yeah, maybe this election leaves the markets a little unstable, and maybe it means that Italy might need another election in six months. Those are pretty small complaints in the grand scheme of things. Or to put it another way, as poorly as the markets reacted to the Italian election, think about how poorly the markets would have reacted to rioters looting and pillaging their way through Rome. There is basically no other way that the Italian people could have vented their anger which would have led to a better market reaction and plenty of things they could have done to cause much more harm. Not only would most ways of expressing anger stall the economy and leave investors jittery, they would also cause damage to infrastructure and create costs for the already over-stressed Italian budget (e.g. cleaning up debris, rebuilding burned buildings, etc.). How do we know that democracy works? Because when faced with a situation that leads many countries dissolve into chaos, Italy's citizens were able to let off steam in a way that let the powers that be know the displeasure of the people, but which didn't shut the country down. Compared to the alternative, voting in a protest party is a credit to both the Italian people and to their democratic institutions.

An Unhealthy Nexus: Iran and Argentina

 

This week the Congress of Argentina is debating the approval of an agreement signed by Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman and his Iranian counterpart Ali Akbar Salehi, which aims to create a "Truth Commission" into the 1994 terrorist bombing attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires.By voting to approve the agreement majorities in both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies of the Argentine Congress have joined with President Kirchner in failing to act in the interest of the Argentine people and all those affected by this heinous terrorist attack; the deadliest terror attack in the Americas prior to 9/11. Argentina now seems set on a path of colluding with the those who stand accused as the perpetrators to replace the Argentine criminal justice process with a vague arrangement that will, at best, further delay justice and, at worst, result in a gross miscarriage of justice. How did we get to this point in which the Argentine government is party to a sham agreement with the Iranian regime? How did Argentina agree to allow Iran to injure the victims and their families again this time by disrespecting the memory of those citizens of Argentina who lost their lives and were injured.According to Argentinean and Iranian news reports, it seems the conversations began about two years ago. Foreign Minister Hector Timerman had been on record, several times condemning such allegations. His declarations now prove to be untrustworthy because reality proves different.It is hard to believe that Argentina will now play into the hands of the Iranians and collaborate with the world's most notorious state sponsor of terrorism. This agreement only serves the interests of the Iranian perpetrators in their nearly 20 year efforts to evade the consequences of their culpability in the attack and bypass the Argentine justice system. What troubles me more is that Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in her interest to defend this agreement goes to the point to intimidate the Jewish community through social media and challenges its leaders. Moreover, she implicitly exonerates the Iranian regime from any responsibility in case of a future terror attack. How can President Kirchner be so blind about who she is talking about?Iranian President Ahmadinejad's repeated anti-Semitic rants, outright Holocaust denial and statements calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map" are a venomous expression of the contempt that the Iranian president has for the Jewish people.The extremism of the Iranian government is well understood by its citizens, its neighbors and the international community and goes far beyond rhetoric. We need to remind Argentina's government that in the aftermath of its 2009 elections, Iran showed its true colors. A regime that so blatantly denies the voice of its people by rigging an election and violently suppressing public outrage cannot be trusted on the international scene.At a time when the international community is sanctioning Iran over its nuclear aspirations, countries like Argentina, who have been direct targets of Iranian terror, should be at the forefront of isolating rather than engaging in a sham negotiation with its rogue regime.For more than 18 years the international community supported the Argentine government's efforts to investigate the AMIA bombing. We cannot support President Kirchner's intentions to turn away from pursuing justice for the victims.In the interest of the 85 innocent Argentinians killed, the hundreds more who were injured, Jews and non-Jews alike, and their families, justice needs to be served and it won't be through this agreement as Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman and President Fernandez de Kirchner want us to believe.

The Second Battle of Marathon

 

The Second World War was the most destructive and bloody conflict of all times. Large and small countries fought bitterly to the end, killing millions of humans and causing immense devastation of both nature and societies. To some degree, WWII was also a holocaust of civilization.Germany and Italy started the war against other European countries in 1939 and 1940. Germany dealt with the countries of Western Europe and Italy started with Greece, which it attacked on October 28, 1940. The Greeks soundly defeated the invading Italians in the northern Greek province of Epirus and Albania. The Greek victory became the "first victory" of the Allies in WWII. This historical fact was so important in the evolution of WWII, indeed, largely determining the course of the war between Germany and Russia, and, therefore, the outcome of WWII, that it deserved its own history. It found its student in George Blytas, a Greek from Egypt who had an engineering career in America. Blytas' father was born in a village in Epirus, Sitaria, where fierce battles took place between Greeks and Italians. Blytas visited Sitaria in 1951. Eventually, he became a self-taught historian to record the events of the fateful 1940-1941 war between a large European country, Italy, successor to Rome and partner of Nazi Germany, and small Greece, successor of ancient Greece.Blytas spent 18 years in composing his story - a detailed narrative of war between Greeks and Italians and Germans in 16 chapters, and a record of the dreadful consequences of the occupation of Greece by Germans, Italians and Bulgarians in 8 chapters. The 24 chapters of the book represent the 24 letters of the Greek alphabet.Blytas starts his account by quoting Hitler talking about WWII. Hitler acknowledged the Italian war against Greece was a bad idea. "The shameful defeats that the Italians suffered in their pointless campaign in Greece," Hitler said, "compelled us, contrary to our plans, to intervene in the Balkans primarily Greece, April 6, 1941, and that in turn led to a catastrophic delay in the launching of our attack on Russia."Blytas says Greece played a "crucial" and "defining" role in WWII. His book, "The First Victory" (Cosmos Publishing, 2009), backs him up. The Greek victory over the Italians was no small skirmish. Italy poured more than 500,000 soldiers supported by hundreds of tanks and warplanes. Then, starting on April 6, 1941, the Germans added even more troops, tanks and warplanes. All together, the Axis powers, Italy, Germany, Albania and Bulgaria, marshaled about 750,000 soldiers against Greece. The Greeks decimated the elite German paratroopers in Crete.WWII lasted for 72 months. The Allies failed in Europe where German troops captured Poland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark in less than 3 months. In the midst of this failure, Greece resisted the Axis powers for 7 months. This was, according to Blytas, an "astonishing achievement" hardly less important than the battle of Marathon. In 490 BCE, Athenians and Plataeans defeated a vastly larger invading Persian army, thus keeping Greece and Europe free from Persian occupation and slavery. The war and resistance of Greece to Italians and Germans in WWII also saved Europe from Nazi German occupation and slavery. "The battle of Greece," Says Blytas, "was the twentieth-century version of the battle of Marathon."The world watched Greek heroism against the armies of Mussolini with admiration. Blytas quotes President Roosevelt praising Greece. Speaking on October 28, 1943, the third anniversary of the Italian invasion of Greece, Roosevelt said Greece "set an example that every one of us must follow until the despoilers of freedom everywhere are brought to their just doom."The end of WWII brought partial doom to the despoilers of freedom. But the historians did not hear Roosevelt. They rushed defending the strong powers and ignored Greece. Indeed, they neglected the strategic role Greek resistance to Italy and Germany had in the delayed German attack on Russia, which led to the defeat of Germany. They also distorted the first victory of Greece, suggesting British troops made that possible. Not a single British soldier, Blytas says, was in continental Greece in the winter of 1940.For these reasons read "The First Victory." It is the first scholarly treatment of what Greece did and suffered in WWII. The story Blytas tells is gripping, thorough, thoughtful and backed by reliable evidence.The Axis powers dismembered Greece and killed 10 percent of her population and wiped out her infrastructure. When the occupiers left Greece, the country looked like a nuclear bomb had hit it. This is important because truth is important.s Euripides said, "Blessed is the man who has learned history."

Sunday, January 6, 2013

06.01.2013



The Israeli Elections: The Left in Search of Identity

 

All the polls taken in Israel ahead of the upcoming Knesset elections indicate a static situation, so far as the division between right and left is concerned. The only significant changes are inside the two main blocks, that of the current coalition and that of the opposition. So far as the coalition is concerned, this blog already relayed the meteoric rise of Naftali Bnnett and his Jewish Home party at the expense of Likud. Altogether, the parties comprising the current Netanyahu coalition maintain their 65-68 seats, as opposed to the 52-55 seats held by the current opposition parties. A dramatic, and as yet unforeseen, change should take place for this electoral map to turn around, dethrone Netanyahu and bring in a new leader for Israel. Never say never, particularly in reference to Israeli politics, and to what happens in a country which prides itself with having never a dull moment, yet this is a dull campaign, henceforth the expectation for a last-minute upheaval may most likely remain an expectation, not a reality. Right and left in Israel are terms which do not correspond with the accepted European and to a large extent also American definitions of right and left, nor in regard to the class divisions, nor concerning attitudes towards socioeconomic issues. Every American reader equates support for Obamacare with the left, but in Israel, it was a Likud, a right-wing government, which instituted a state-run health insurance legislation. American readers also automatically put unions and their membership in the left-wing column, but in Israel it is different. One of the main power brokers of the Likud party, MK Haim Katz, is also the chairman of the union of the Israel Aircraft Industries, the largest public industrial employer in Israel; and this is just one, though prominent, example. Grover Norquist would be terrified to find out that in Likud, whose leader PM Netanyahu likes to compare himself to conservative Republicans, there are many who openly call for more taxation, particularly on the rich, as a way of paying for the welfare state that they want Israel to be.So, in order to have a better sense of the otherwise confusing world of Israeli politics, we can go by one definition of left versus right, and this is the attitude towards the conflict with the Palestinians, the notion of a two-state solution and the attitude towards settlements. Here, too, the picture is somewhat murky and unclear. There are five parties competing for about 40 seats, as about 10-12 go to the three Arab parties. The fact that the Arab-Israeli vote goes mainly to Arab parties, and less and less to center and center-left Jewish parties, is one of the ringing failures of parties in Israel which claim to present an inclusive political platform, one that could provide a political home for many Israeli Arabs. Those who want to combine support for Palestinian national aspirations with a drive to better their lot in the State of Israel, with its built-in Jewish majority and character. There are Arab candidates in the parties of the center and left, but these people seem to have no troops behind them. This is just one of the failures of the center and left, in terms of broadening their electoral base. Three other big blocks of voters continue to be firmly in the right-wing column, and out of reach for the center and left; Sepharadic voters, Jews from the former Soviet Union, and religious voters. These three blocks constitute the backbone of the right-wing coalition, and they continue to be impregnable to the Israeli left. This is not good news to the five parties of the center and left, better news to Netanyahu, but still potentially troubling for him, because the current polls show him losing ground to the right-wing religious parties, something which will greatly curtail his freedom of action after the elections. Here there is a potential opportunity for the center left, but one which is being sadly wasted. The Labor leader, Shelly Yechimovitz, who competes with Bennett for the no. two slot after Likud is committed not to join a coalition led by Netanyahu, and so is the marginal Meretz party. The movement of former FM Livni, Yesh Atid we have a future of Yair Lapid and what is left of the Kadima party under Shaul Mofaz are ready to join Netanyahu, but without the religious right wing. Confused? You ought to be, and so are many Israeli voters who otherwise would have liked to vote against Netanyahu, but feel that under current circumstances their vote will be to no avail. One of them is Yuval Diskin, a former head of the General Security Service and a fierce critic of Netanyahu from the left, who called for likeminded people to abstain from voting altogether. Clearly, sweet music to the ears of Netanyahu and Lieberman. With the center and left so fragmented over their priorities, unable to find the minimal workable common denominator, Netanyahu cruises ever more easily towards another term. So, on January 23rd the all too familiar ritual of soul-searching and self-blame, so familiar to the Israeli center and left, is expected to commence in full force.

Israel's Election (and Settlements) Are Killing the Two-State Solution

 

Israel's upcoming Jan. 22 parliamentary election had been expected to be a status quo affair leading to an easy victory for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Instead, it's turned into a race to the extreme right that is threatening to kill the two-state solution. And Washington seems oblivious. The latest polls still show Netanyahu emerging as the next prime minister, but in a weakened position atop a coalition filled with politicians adamantly opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state. This new configuration will narrow Netanyahu's freedom of action and ability to engage in meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians. On the Palestinian side, moderates President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have both lost popular support to Hamas, which rejects Israel's existence. How much longer can the moderates hang on, absent some progress toward a Palestinian state, before the Islamic winds blowing through the Arab world sweep them away?It's a major headache for President Obama, who no longer has the luxury of non-engagement in the Middle East. Without swift, firm and decisive action to reignite a meaningful peace process and to push for a swift deal, the two-state option may disappear forever, leaving Israelis and Palestinians alike facing a future of endless conflict in a region already racked with instability. Obama has been hanging back during the Israeli election campaign and until he can put together his national security team for his second term. But the need is now urgent. He needs to rally his Quartet partners -- the EU, the UN and Russia -- and put together a concrete plan and timetable for a solution. Obama should consider an early trip to the Middle East to get things back on track. Whatever tactics he adopts, the president urgently needs to use political capital and diplomatic muscle to get the parties back to the table and then make the no doubt difficult concessions necessary for a deal because the alternatives are truly frightening.The parameters of such a plan remain clear: an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines with some small land swaps; secure borders for Israel; an equitable deal on Jerusalem and, of course, statehood for the Palestinians.We're now past the point of apportioning blame for a diplomatic deadlock that is almost two-and-a-half years long. Sure, there's plenty of blame to go around but the overriding fact is that Israeli settlements are fast eating away at possibility of ever establishing a Palestinian state and Israel's lurch to the political right is accelerating that process. New Israeli plans to build in the East Jerusalem settlement of Givat Hamatos would cut Bethlehem off from Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, while proposed new settlements in an area known as EI east of Jerusalem would drive a massive wedge between the north and south of the West Bank.Israeli politicians have been indulging in what can only be described as a settlement frenzy. As Netanyahu's Likud-Beitenu block has slipped back in the polls, the story of the election has been the meteoric rise of the extreme right-wing HaBayit HaYehudi (Jewish Home) Party whose leader, Naftali Bennett, advocates the immediate annexation of 60 percent of the West Bank. Bennett looks like he is emerging as the leader of the third and possibly even the second largest party in the new Knesset with up to 18 seats, the same as is projected for the opposition Labor Party which once dominated Israeli politics. Netanyahu's own ranks now include figures like Moshe Feiglin, a firebrand who wants to rebuild a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount where the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques now stand the third holiest site in Islam. He was arrested there this week trying to pray, a deliberately inflammatory act. Past attempts to encroach on what Muslims call the "Noble Sanctuary" have been met by outrage and violent resistance. In September 2000, a visit to the site by then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon surrounded by hundreds of riot police was the spark that ignited what became known as the Second Intifada which, in the next five years, took the lives of an estimated 3,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis. Feiglin also found time to address a "one-state solution" conference in Jerusalem where he outlined a plan to pay Palestinian families $500,000 each to emigrate. Because of the low birth rates in Western nations, they will welcome immigrants who "know how to build," he said. This is the same man who told The Atlantic Monthly's Jeffrey Goldberg nine years ago: "You can't teach a monkey to speak and you can't teach an Arab to be democratic. You're dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers. Muhammad, their prophet, was a robber and a killer and a liar. The Arab destroys everything he touches. "Several other Likud parliamentarians attending the conference, including Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein, who said Israel should move toward the gradual or total annexation of the West Bank while scrapping the Oslo Peace Accords of 1993, which still provide the framework for an eventual peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.Last week, Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar, who is No. 3 on Netanyahu's election slate, said "two states for two peoples was never part of Likud's election platform." Knesset Member Tzipi Hotovely, No. 15 on the list, said Netanyahu had only adopted the policy to "placate the world." Without vigorous U.S. leadership at the highest level, we may soon be looking at a Middle East in which both sides are governed by extremists who reject the other's right to exist on the land. That's not a future anyone should want to see.


Ten New Year's Resolutions for U.S. Policy Towards Latin America

 

U.S. policy towards our Latin American neighbors is, as usual, in need of a few New Year's resolutions. Here goes:Ban assault weapons. Three months before the murders of 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut, 110 victims of violence and advocates from Mexico traveled across the United States calling on us to take action to stop the violence that has claimed over 100,000 lives in Mexico during the last six years. They asked us to ban the assault weapons that arm Mexico's brutal cartels. Some 70 percent of assault weapons and other firearms used by criminal gangs in Mexico come from the United States. The United States should reinstate and tighten the assault weapon ban and enforce the ban on the import of assault weapons into our country, which are then smuggled into Mexico. Do it for Newtown. Do it for Aurora. Do it for Mexico's mothers and fathers who have lost their children to senseless violence. Deliver comprehensive immigration reform. Democrats and Republicans alike should heed the message delivered by the Latino vote in 2012 and provide a path to citizenship for the eleven million people living in the shadows in the United States and build a flexible, sensible legal immigration system for the future. This historic step would help families and the economy in the United States and Latin America, and would do more to improve U.S.-Latin American relations than any other single action. And right now, the Obama administration should protect the rights of migrants and border communities by stopping deportation practices that send migrants back to dangerous areas to be preyed upon by cartels, and by ensuring U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents are held accountable for abuses. Support peace in Colombia, with justice. In 2013, there's a real chance to end the longest-running conflict in the Americas. The Obama administration sensibly backs Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos' negotiations with the FARC guerrillas. But we should also be listening to the voices of families of the disappeared and kidnapped, and the mothers of children murdered by Colombia's army, who are calling for justice along with peace. There must be accountability and truth for the murder, torture, forced displacement and rape perpetrated by all actors: the paramilitaries, the guerrillas and the country's own armed forces. The sad truth is that the Santos administration is moving backwards in accountability for army abuses. Without full truth and a strong measure of justice, there cannot be a lasting peace.Try this on for size: a rational policy towards Cuba. The United States should launch a serious dialogue that aims at lifting the failed, 50-year embargo. We know this won't happen overnight. For starters, we should end the travel ban that divides us from our neighbors just off the Florida coast. The Obama administration should also take Cuba off the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism; there is no earthly reason it belongs there in 2013. The accusation of giving shelter to Colombia's guerrillas was one of the few rationales for Cuba's inclusion; now Cuba is lauded by Colombia's government for hosting peace negotiations. If we support peace in Colombia, how can we not recognize Cuba's contribution?End the militarized approach to drugs. Latin American presidents of all political persuasions are telling us: we must rethink the "War on Drugs," which has brought suffering without results. For starters, we should stop the tactics that cause the most harm while doing the least good: counternarcotics campaigns that bring Latin American armies into the streets; aerial spraying, which destroys food as well as drug crops. And we should focus on the public health approaches here and abroad that do the most good and the least harm: providing treatment when and where addicts need it; evidence-based prevention campaigns; youth employment and building resilient communities.Focus on aid that helps people, not guns and military aid. As we face another battle on budget cuts, why not put military aid to Latin America on the chopping block. There's no war anywhere in the region, if Colombia's peace talks succeed. Focus on aid that actually helps people: disaster assistance, including reconstruction aid for Haiti; aid for health care, education, micro-loans, improving justice systems, and community development. Ensure that aid programs are consulted with the people they intend to benefit.Speak up for human rights. While the United States isn't perfect, as our Latin American friends readily tell us, our government should speak up for human rights in this hemisphere. But do it fairly. When a left-wing government restricts freedom of the press, the United States should speak against this. When governments the U.S. favors  like Colombia and Mexico fail to prosecute human rights abuses committed by their militaries, the United States should press for justice, including by suspending military aid when needed. Decisively support human rights in Honduras. Honduras is in crisis. Since the June 2009 coup in Honduras, human rights protections, never strong, have been severely weakened. Human rights defenders, LGBT community members, leaders in poor farming communities, and opposition activists have been threatened and killed, in crimes for which there is no justice. Military, police and private security guards are unaccountable. The United States should suspend military and police aid to Honduras while using aid and tough diplomacy to help Honduras strengthen the failing justice system. Support the Inter-American human rights system. To its credit, the Obama administration has actively supported the Inter-American human rights system, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which many Latin American governments of left, right and center have recently sought to weaken. 2013 will be an important year to join with civil society groups across the Americas to ensure reforms strengthen, not weaken, this system's role as the last recourse for victims who fail to attain justice in their countries. Finally, clean up our own act. The United States' voice on human rights will be stronger, of course, if our government sticks to human rights principles in its own actions. Drone strikes that kill civilians, rendition, indefinite detention and complete lack of due process for terror suspects weaken U.S. credibility in Latin America as well as in other regions of the world. Now, if we could keep these resolutions, 2013 would be a banner year for U.S.-Latin American relations.