President Barack Obama’s governance – observations & opinions

Archive for June, 2009

* Sanford’s follies may have a silver lining … perhaps even Republican conservatives will begin to see that issues like these are personal matters, not the business of American government; except for dereliction of duty, which is very much the business of the citizens of South Carolina

Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 25, 2009

Jim Davenport writes for AP (6-25-09) …

  • After going AWOL for seven days, Gov. Mark Sanford admitted Wednesday that he had secretly flown to
    Governor Sanford - SC

    Governor Sanford - SC

    Argentina to visit a woman with whom he was having an affair.

  • Sanford, who in recent months had been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2012, said he would resign as head of the Republican Governors Association.
  • By leaving the country without formally transferring power, critics said he neglected his gubernatorial authority and put the state at risk. It wasn’t clear how his staff could reach him in an emergency.
  • State Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia, called for Sanford’s resignation. “There is no reason for him to remain as governor.”

read the entire article at … http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090625/ap_on_re_us/us_sc_governor_where_69

LMW COMMENT …

There seem to be no depths to which Republican leaders will not sink in their apparent efforts to sink their party into oblivion. I believe in the two party system, and I am distressed with the Republican failure to make any real efforts to build one.

There is also no end to the hypocrisy of the Republican party building its electoral success on specious “family values” issues which have little to do with the true purpose of government in America’s democratic system.

Although perhaps here lies the silver lining.

All humans have their frailties, Governor Sanford certainly not accepted. The lesson here is not to dwell on the governor’s personal tragedies, but to recognize that these issues are personal, to be dealt with between the parties involved in whatever way they find comfort.

The main issue I have with the governor is that he was atrociously derelict in the performance of his duties for the people of South Carolina. I think he should resign immediately.

It is not the business of government to impose moral views on its citizens. This applies to America as well as to Iran and all other countries of the world. Religion has its place, but that place is distinct from government. When we forget or blur those differences, we all suffer.

Posted in church & government, politics | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

* the crisis in Iran: after 8 years of unproductive Bush/Cheney bluster and wars of choice, Republicans still don’t get it; President Obama does

Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 22, 2009

CASE CLOSED: the FBI’s failed investigation of the 2001 anthrax caseCC - front cover - small

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

read more at http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/

***

the crisis in Iran: after 8 years of unproductive

Bush/Cheney bluster and wars of choice,

Republicans still don’t get it;

President Obama does

***

Anne Gearan writes for AP (6-21-09) …

  • Republicans intensified their criticism of President Barack Obama’s handling of his first major test of
    Iran protester

    Iran protester

    international leadership, saying Sunday that he has been too cautious in response to Iran’s postelection upheaval.

    • Both the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly last week to condemn an official crackdown on the mostly peaceful demonstrations, a stronger action than the White House has yet taken.
    • Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC … “The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham. “He’s been timid and passive more than I would like.”
    • Sen. John McCain, R-AR, and others noted that Western leaders, including French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have demanded a recount or more forcefully condemned the government crackdown. “I’d like to see the president be stronger than he has been, although I appreciate the comments that he made yesterday,” McCain said. “I think we ought to have America lead.”
    • Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-IO, said a slow or muted U.S. response risks undermining the aspirations of Iranian voters to change or question their government. “If America stands for democracy and all of these demonstrations are going on in Tehran and other cities over there, and people don’t think that we really care, then obviously they’re going to question, ‘do we really believe in our principles?’” Grassley said.
  • But in an interview released Sunday, President Obama argued: “The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. We shouldn’t be playing into that.”
    • Obama has tried to hold a middle ground as the crisis unfolds, and found the ground shifting by the day. His advisers say any thunderous denunciation of Iran’s rulers would invite them to cry interference and might worsen the violence instead of end it.
    • Obama on Saturday challenged Iran’s government to halt a “violent and unjust” crackdown on dissenters, and he quoted Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
    • “Right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian people’s belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear
      Sen. Lugar

      Sen. Lugar

      witness,” Obama said.

  • Sen. Richard Lugar R-IN, a moderate Republican who holds the party’s top position on the Senate ForeignRelations Committee, seemed to echo Obama’s caution. “The challenge continues, which is going to come to a conclusion one way or another,” Lugar said. “Either the protesters bring about change or they’re suppressed, and it’s a potentially very brutal outcome at the end of the day.”

read the entire article at … http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_iran_11

LMW COMMENT

True leadership is far more than the bullying bluster of the Bush/Cheney years which set America’s position in the world to its lowest depths in memory.

President Obama, in his intelligent thoughtful approach and his willingness to listen, epitomized in his Cairo speech, has set a far different tone which has the possibility of a far different and better result. Does anyone think what’s going on in Iran is unrelated to the call for democracy and freedom in Cairo, and the implicit understanding that efforts in that direction would be welcome.

But to follow that caring outreach with blustering threats would, as President Obama has said, change the debate and permit the dictators in Iraq to demonize America instead of forcing them to respond to the calls for freedom from their own people.

How fortunate we are to have the president we do. And kudos to Dick Lugar for understanding and having the courage to say so.

Posted in international, leadership | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

* Atul Gawande in the New Yorker (6-1-09): there is no solution to our healthcare dilemma if we don’t first understand the problem

Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 19, 2009

CASE CLOSED: the FBI’s failed investigation of the 2001 anthrax caseCC - front cover - small

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

read more at http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/

Atul Gawande’s article in New Yorker

is the best statement of the healthcare problem I have ever read

I recommend you go to http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande and read the entire article.

Here are some extracts …

  • McAllen, Texas is one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country.McAllen Texas
  • Only Miami—which has much higher labor and living costs—spends more per person on health care.
  • In 2006, Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per enrollee here, almost twice the national average.
  • Our country’s health care is by far the most expensive in the world. The question we’re now frantically grappling with is how this came to be, and what can be done about it.
  • McAllen, Texas, the most expensive town in the most expensive country for health care in the world, seemed a good place to look for some answers.

LMW: What follows reads like a detective story, as Gawande hears and explores one suggested reason after another, rejecting them all until …

  • The Medicare payment data provided the most detail.
    • Between 2001 and 2005, critically ill Medicare patients received almost fifty per cent more specialist visits in McAllen than in El Paso, and were two-thirds more likely to see ten or more specialists in a six-month period. I
    • n 2005 and 2006, patients in McAllen received
      • twenty per cent more abdominal ultrasounds,
      • thirty per cent more bone-density studies,
      • sixty per cent more stress tests with echocardiography,
      • two hundred per cent more nerve-conduction studies to diagnose carpal-tunnel syndrome,
      • and five hundred and fifty per cent more urine-flow studies to diagnose prostate troubles.
      • They received one-fifth to two-thirds more gallbladder operations, knee replacements, breast biopsies, and bladder scopes.
      • They also received two to three times as many pacemakers, implantable defibrillators, cardiac-bypass operations, carotid endarterectomies, and coronary-artery stents.
    • And Medicare paid for five times as many home-nurse visits.

The primary cause of McAllen’s extreme costs was

the across-the-board overuse of medicine.

  • I talked to Denis Cortese, the C.E.O. of the Mayo Clinic, which is among the highest-quality, lowest-cost health-care systems in the country.
    • The core tenet of the Mayo Clinic is “The needs of the patient come first”—not the convenience of the doctors, not their revenues.
    • … decades ago Mayo recognized that the first thing it needed to do was eliminate the financial barriers.
    • It pooled all the money the doctors and the hospital system received and began paying everyone a salary, so that the doctors’ goal in patient care couldn’t be increasing their income.
  • The Mayo Clinic is not an aberration.
    • One of the lowest-cost markets in the country is Grand Junction, Colorado, a community of a hundred and twenty thousand that nonetheless has achieved some of Medicare’s highest quality-of-care scores.
    • years ago the doctors agreed among themselves to a system that paid them a similar fee whether they saw Medicare, Medicaid, or private-insurance patients, so that there would be little incentive to cherry-pick patients.
    • Grand Junction’s medical community was not following anyone else’s recipe. But, like Mayo, it created what Elliott Fisher, of Dartmouth, calls an accountable-care organization.
    • The leading doctors and the hospital system adopted measures to blunt harmful financial incentives, and they took collective responsibility for improving the sum total of patient care.

we are witnessing a battle for the soul of American medicine

  • Somewhere in the United States at this moment, a patient with chest pain, or a tumor, or a cough is seeing a doctor. And the damning question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up
    • to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost,
    • or to maximize revenue.
  • There is no insurance system that will make the two aims match perfectly. But having a system that does so much to misalign them has proved disastrous.
    • As economists have often pointed out, we pay doctors for quantity, not quality.
    • we also pay them as individuals, rather than as members of a team working together for their patients.
    • Both practices have made for serious problems.

Activists and policymakers spend an inordinate amount of time

arguing about whether the solution to high medical costs

is to have government or private insurance companies write the checks.

These arguments miss the main issue.

  • The lesson of the high-quality, low-cost communities is that someone has to be accountable for the totality of care. Otherwise, you get a system that has no brakes. You get McAllen.

Posted in healthcare | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

* since when are politicians entitled to court protection from political ridicule?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 19, 2009

Lew’s new novel CASE CLOSEDCC - front cover - small

explores the FBI’s failed investigation of the 2001 anthrax case …

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

read about CASE CLOSED at http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/

* since when are politicians entitled to

court protection from political ridicule?

Nedra Pickler writes for AP (6-18-09)

  • A federal judge said Thursday that he wants to look at notes from the FBI’s interview with former Vice PresidentCheney Dick Cheney during the investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA operative.
  • U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan’s decision to review the documents followed arguments by Obama administration lawyers that sounded much like the reasons the Bush administration provided for keeping Cheney’s interview from the public.
  • Justice Department lawyers told the judge that future presidents and vice presidents may not cooperate with criminal investigations if they know what they say could become available to their political opponents and late-night comics who would ridicule them.
  • “If we become a fact-finder for political enemies, they aren’t going to cooperate,” Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Smith said during a 90-minute hearing. “I don’t want a future vice president to say, `I’m not going to cooperate with you because I don’t want to be fodder for ‘The Daily Show.’”

read the entire article at … http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/ap_on_go_ot/us_cheney_cia_leak_8

LMW COMMENT … Since when do politicians need court protection to save them from political ridicule? That is indeed a ridiculous argument, whether offered by the Bush or Obama administration.

Posted in politics | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

* Israel should separate itself from the West bank settlements

Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 12, 2009

Lew’s new novel CASE CLOSEDCC - front cover - small

explores the FBI’s failed investigation of the 2001 anthrax case …

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

read about CASE CLOSED at http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/

* Israel should separate itself …

Several days ago, I posted a long letter from Robert K. Lifton on the subject of Israel’s policy toward the West Ban settlements. Here are brief extracts from Mr. Lifton’s previously posted letter …

Israel showing Gaza & the West Bank

Israel showing Gaza & the West Bank

  • the present policy of the Netanyahu government that would result in further growth of the settler population holds out the possibility for serious dispute between the US and Israeli administrations.
  • it also has the potential to threaten the very essence of Israel as a Jewish state.
  • if Israel were to incorporate the Territories as part of a Greater Israel, ultimately a majority of its population would be Palestinian. In that case, it would
    • either have to end its position as a Jewish State
    • or disenfranchise the Palestinian population and no longer continue as a democratic state.
  • (the far better policy is) that Israel should separate itself from the Territories.

LMW COMMENT … Bob Lifton has been for many years one of the clearest thinkers on the issues that plague the state of Israel. Here, he puts forward a policy that right wing Israelis find hard to accept. Those Jews and others in America who uncritically support every Israeli policy will find Mr. Lifton’s prescription unacceptable. More reasonable people throughout the world who believe a two-state solution to the Palestine-Israel problem is the only solution, will take comfort in Mr. Lifton’s analysis.

read Bob Lifton’s entire letter at … * Robert K. Lifton: expanding Israel’s West Bank settlements is not in Israel’s best interest

Posted in Israel, international | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

* Republicans have no ideas and no plans; instead of providing the responsible opposition our country needs, all they can do is call Obama names while seeking to raise unsupported fears; it’s pathetic.

Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 12, 2009

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-OH)

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Laurie Kellman writes for AP (6-12-09) …

  • The No. 2 Republican in the House on Thursday compared President Barack Obama’s plans for the auto industry to the policies of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, saying the White Househas stripped credit holders of rights and given them to Democratic allies.
  • “They said, ‘Set aside the rule of law, let’s strip secured creditors, bondholders, of their rights. Take them away outside of the bankruptcy process and give them to the political cronies and the auto workers’ unions,” Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said in an interview with The Associated Press.
  • “It’s almost like looking at Putin’s Russia,” added Cantor, the GOP’s House whip. “You want to reward your political friends at the expense of the certainty of law?”
  • “The Democratic agenda is unraveling,” he said, elucidating what’s become the Republicans’ main talking point in recent weeks. “My sense is by November of 2010, (there will be) an electorate that really wants to see a check and a balance on unfettered power.”

read the entire article at … http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090612/ap_on_go_co/us_cantor_obama_10

LMW COMMENT

After the Bush/Cheney/Republican policies set this country into a disastrous war of choice, and under-regulated Wall Street and the economy to the point of collapse, and caused the country to reject them in the 2008 elections, they still have nothing constructive to say about what to do next. No ideas. No plans. Nothing to do but call the most dynamic president of our age names.

The auto companies drove themselves into bankruptcy by their own incompetence. The solutions posed by the Obama administration as the price for taxpayer support to keep GM and Chrysler alive have imposed sacrifice on the companies, their shareholders and bondholders, and the labor unions whose extravagance has been part of the problem. This is as it should be.

If it wasn’t so serious, we should all just laugh at the Republicans. But the thruth is we need a viable two party system in America. We need a strong opposition party to keep Democrats in check, just as Democrats should have kept Republicans in check during the Bush/Cheney years. Democrats failed then, Republicans are failing now.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

* Robert K. Lifton: expanding Israel’s West Bank settlements is not in Israel’s best interest

Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 7, 2009

NOTE: read a short summary of Mr. Lifton’s main points at …

* Israel should separate itself from the West bank settlements

LMW … I have known Mr. Lifton since the early 1990s. I have repeatedly found his analyses of the Middle Eastern situation to be uniquely well reasoned.

Mr. Lifton holds an B.B.A. degree from the School of Business Administration, City University of New York. He graduated Magna Cum Laude and was elected to the honorary society Beta Gamma Sigma. In 1951 he received an L.L.B. degree from Yale Law School, where he was a member of the Order of the Coif and Note Editor of the Yale Law Journal. He was admitted to the New York Bar in 1952. In 1988 he became President of the American Jewish Congress, an association of Jewish Americans organized to defend Jewish interests at home and abroad through public policy advocacy. He is a Founder and served as Chairman of the Israel Policy Forum, a group which combines the policy development and publications of a think tank, with the educational programming and advocacy initiatives of a lobby. Mr. Lifton has been a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations, an independent, nonpartisan membership organization which seeks to better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries. Mr. Lifton has been engaged in a broad range of  entrepreneurial activities.

Here is Occasional Letter #70 in a series written by Robert K. Lifton …

Dear Friend,

This is the first new Letter I have written to you since my Letter # 69 written in April 2007. Last week I e-mailed a copy of that Letter to you to make a few points.

  • First, how very little progress had been made in dealing with problems in the Middle East  – particularly the Israeli-Palestinian issues – in over two years.
  • Second, the Letter suggested a direct linkage between dealing with Iran and the Israel-Palestinian issues which President Obama recognized in his recent meeting with Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu despite Netanyahu’s efforts to keep the two matters separate.
  • Third, the Letter suggested a new diplomatic approach that would connect Iran’s cessation of nuclear development with Israel’s resolution of its relationship the Palestinians.

In the last three weeks we have seen a flurry of activity around the problems gripping the Middle East: first, the meetings of President Obama with Prime Minister Netanyahu and then with Palestinian President Abbas and most recently President Obama’s visit to the Middle East and his inspired speech in Cairo.

In this Letter I would like to focus on one theme that was a central element in the discussions at all of those forums, namely the Israeli settlements.

Israel showing Gaza & the West Bank

Israel showing Gaza & the West Bank

Simply put, in my view the present broad based, highly populated status of the settlements combined with the policy of the Netanyahu government that would result in further growth of the settler population does not only hold out the possibility for serious dispute between the US and Israeli administrations.

  • More important, I believe that it has the potential to threaten the very essence of Israel as a Jewish state. Thus, it has fundamental implications that not only affect the people of Israel but Jews throughout the world who have looked at Israel as the ultimate safety net for the Jewish people.

To explain my perspective, let me share with you some personal history. In 1988 I became President of the American Jewish Congress. Shortly before that the leadership of the American Jewish Congress undertook a mission to the Middle East to educate ourselves and form a basis for our policies regarding Israel and the Palestinians. At that time, Yitzhak Shamir, head of the Likud Party, was Prime Minister of Israel and one of the rising stars of the party was Benyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu who served as Israel’s Ambassador the United Nations.  Both Shamir, Netanyahu and their party were identified with the belief in a biblically inspired “Greater Israel” which would ultimately encompass all of the Occupied Territories,  (a term some on the far right did not like  preferring to call them “disputed territories.”) namely, the West bank and Gaza.

Israel should separate itself from the occupied territories

After days of meetings with people holding a broad range of views, the American Jewish Congress leadership came to a conclusion that set it apart from the rest of the major Jewish organizations: that Israel should separate itself from the Territories.

  • The underpinning for that view was the demographic studies reflecting the anticipated much faster growth of the Palestinian population both in Israel and in the Territories compared with the anticipated growth of the Jewish population in Israel.
  • Thus, if Israel were to incorporate the Territories as part of a Greater Israel, ultimately a majority of its population would be Palestinian. In that case, it would
    • either have to end its position as a Jewish State
    • or disenfranchise the Palestinian population and no longer continue as a democratic state.

The Settlement Issue

With that perspective, let’s look at the issues relating to the settlements.

  • Over the period of years since Israel’s victory in the 1967 War, settlement activity was supported by both the conservative Likud and liberal Labor parties based on two rationales. Some supported settlements as part of a program for expanding Israel to encompass the Territories inspired by the Greater Israel theme.
  • Thus, religious settlers today base their claim to West Bank land on the biblical heritage of the Jewish people.
  • Others supported settlements as part of the security system required to protect Israel from Arab attack.
  • This was the argument offered by General, later Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon who over the years showed many of us detailed maps of the areas where Israel needed settlements in place to protect against vulnerabilities to attack.  Others argued that, in any event, the term settlements was not properly applicable to developments in areas around Jerusalem which belonged to Israel and would never be turned over to the Palestinians.
  • Whatever the rationale, settlements kept on expanding to the point where according to the New York Times, over the last 40 years, about 58,800 housing units have been built with Government approval in the West Bank and an additional 46,500 homes have obtained Defense Ministry approval within the existing master plans.
  • At present, the Israeli population in the West Bank, not including East Jerusalem, approaches 300,000 living in about 120 settlements spread through parts of the West Bank. The settlement population is comprised of people motivated by strong religious beliefs as well as many who moved there taking advantage of government subsidy programs that enabled them to have comfortable housing in suburban areas at lower prices than comparable housing in Israel.

Settlements and the US-Israel Relationship

The subject of settlement expansion has been the focus of a number of US Administrations.

  • One of the more explosive moments arose when Israel was seeking loan guarantees from the United States and President George H.W. Bush together with his Secretary of State James Baker attempted to use the leverage of the guarantees to force cessation of settlement activity. This resulted in pressure from the organized Jewish community against that effort and even unfair mischaracterization of President Bush as anti-Semitic.
  • In the ensuing years, Presidents have stayed away from creating arguments with Israel on the subject, mostly referring to settlement activity as “unhelpful.”
  • However, after the meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, the President made clear that the US position is to call for a freeze on all new settlement expansion.
  • Part of being a good friend is being honest,” he (President Obama) said, “there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory, in the region is profoundly negative….”
  • For his part, Mr. Netanyahu has said that while Israel would not allow new settlements, and would take down some illegal settlements, building within the confines of existing settlements must be allowed to continue. “Israel “cannot freeze life in the settlements.” Halting construction, he argued, is “unreasonable.”
  • Moreover, senior Israeli officials complain that Mr. Obama is not following what they call a clear understanding with the Bush administration when they signed onto the so-called road map for a two state solution in 2003.
  • Although the road map provided that Israel agrees to “freeze all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements”) they contend that understanding nevertheless allowed Israel to build settlement housing within the boundaries of certain settlement blocks as long as no new land was expropriated, no special economic incentives were offered to move to settlements and no new settlements were built. Some American officials from that time challenge that contention.

And so the disagreement is in the open and Mr. Netanyahu has to face tough choices between alienating his right wing constituency or the President of the United States.

Israel - a tiny speck in the Middle East

Israel - a tiny speck in the Middle East

The Difficult Course for Israel – Dismantling Settlements

There is a frightening reality facing Israel, given the broad settlement activity that has already taken place that would be further compounded by any additional settlement expansion.

  • That reality is the enormous difficulty of dismantling settlements in the event the parties reached a resolution of their conflict that called for turning areas back to the Palestinians free of settlements.
  • We have seen how tenaciously some of the settlers are holding on to their homes, particularly religious settlers, that even trying to move a very small number required calling in the army to exert physical force.
  • Any effort at large scale dismantling would generate major internal conflicts that could tear the nation apart, particularly, as religious and secular elements took opposing sides.
  • Perhaps this is in part what Mr. Netanyahu recognizes as he dodges openly accepting a two state solution but rather talks about helping the Palestinians “economically” and “not wanting to control” the Palestinians.

The Threat to Israel – No Two State Solution

The premise of all the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians as seen by the United States and the rest of the world is that in the end as President Obama stated in his Cairo address  “the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.”

  • We tend to forget that a two state solution is a relatively new concept created in large part by Yasser Arafat who inspired his people to believe that they should and could have a state of their own and then in the Oslo peace process and thereafter acknowledged that such a state would exist with an Israeli state.
  • Before him the Palestinian aspiration was to return to the land they left, believing that somehow Israel would simply disappear. Frankly, I always felt that Arafat did a great service to Israel in influencing the Palestinians and the rest of the world to adopt a two-state solution.

Absent that concept there would be two other scenarios.

  • One scenario, which is totally unrealistic but that some Israelis – maybe even including Mr. Netanyahu – still believe, is that Israel would continue to control the territories for an indefinite time as they “help” the Palestinians grow to the point where they are ready for statehood.
  • The other scenario is that the territories and their inhabitants join together with Israel and its inhabitants in a single state.

In recent times, some Palestinians have begun to reject the idea of two states and call instead for the two people to live together in one state.  As reflected in my opening discussion, that would be a disastrous scenario for Israel.

  • It could not maintain itself as a Jewish state without disenfranchising the faster growing Palestinian population.
  • But such action would open the door to accusations of apartheid with the probable consequences of world wide opprobrium of a kind that South Africa faced until it allowed its larger native population political control.

There are those who will cavil about one or another portion of President Obama’s speech, depending on their political positions.

For Israelis, and those Jews throughout the world who are dedicated to seeing Israel continue as a Jewish, democratic state, however, President Obama’s advocacy of a two state solution and a cessation to settlement activity must be seen as a boon that serves Israel’s very best interests.

Sincerely,

Bob

Posted in Israel, international, leadership | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

* The Economist: unbalanced article omits President Obama’s condemnation of holocaust denial and Palestinian violence

Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 7, 2009

From The Economist (6-4-09) Obama in Cairo

  • Mr Obama rightly scolded recalcitrant Israelis for their refusal even to accept the idea of two independent states and for letting Jewish settlers continue to build or expand towns and villages on the West Bank.
  • The president rightly urged Arab leaders to continue to press all Palestinians to embrace Israel, provided it offers a decent two-state deal.

read the entire article at … http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13799231

LMW COMMENT

The Economist neglects to mention, in this unbalanced account, President Obama’s very clear condemnation of three pillars of Palestinian/Arab rhetoric and action

  • Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying (the holocaust) is baseless, ignorant, and hateful.
  • Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong.
  • Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed.

I wrote a letter of comment to The Economist stating these glaring omissions.

Posted in Israel, international, leadership | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

* only President Obama can produce meaningful climate change legislation

Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 6, 2009

LMW COMMENT

Two articles in the May 23, 2009 edition of The Economist deal with the progress of President Obama’s initiative to deal seriously with climate change issues after 8 years of the “head in the sand” Bush administration. The Economist is not optimistic about what it sees.

gas guzzling SUV

gas guzzling SUV

My own conclusion is that these issues can never be resolved by a Congress (Democrat or Republican) which is beholden to special interests and a limited constituency. There is never sufficient incentive for enough Congressmen and Senators to focus on the national or global interest as opposed to what they view (perhaps understandably) as more pressing concerns in their own districts.

Only President Obama can focus on the broader problem, move better legislation forward, and take what reasonable people everywhere believe are necessary steps to save our planet as we know it.

It is my hope that the president has delegated this issue to Congress only temporarily, while he deals with the plethora of other issues confronting him and us. Maybe, when the time is right, President Obama will re-enter the climate change fray and produce a meaningful result.

FROM THE ECONOMIST (1st article) … Weak medicine – Compromise has enfeebled America’s cap-and-trade bill. A carbon tax would be better

  • FOR those who believe that climate change is a serious problem, the decisions that America makes now are of momentous importance.
  • the fact that Barack Obama clearly intends to turn America from being a laggard into a leader in this task is therefore encouraging.
  • Good intentions, however, are not enough. Moves in Washington over the past week have indicated the shape of America’s policy.
  • “Oil lost and coal won,” was an insider’s verdict on the two big developments in Washington this week.
  • If America insists on using fuel-efficiency standards to cut vehicle emissions, then tough ones are better than weak ones. Yet such standards are a poor way of reducing emissions.
  • Far better to have a carbon price high enough to pinch, and then let companies and consumers decide where to cut emissions.
  • But that, unfortunately, is unlikely to emerge from the cap-and-trade bill now in the House of Representatives, the details of which have been revealed by its promoters, Henry Waxman and Edward Markey. They have, it seems, granted some rather generous concessions to Midwestern Democrats from states dependent on coal or heavy industry.
  • The weakening of this bill illustrates one of the central problems with cap-and-trade systems. They are complex, obscure and therefore susceptible to horse-trading.
  • The corresponding attraction of a carbon tax, which this newspaper has always supported, is its simplicity. The government sets the rate. Everybody can see what it is. Voters get transparency. Businesses get certainty. And the government gets a large chunk of revenue—not to be sniffed at in these difficult times.

read the entire article at … http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13697284

FROM THE ECONOMIST (2nd article) … The first climate-change bill with a chance of passing is weaker and worse than expected

  • AL GORE calls it “one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in Congress.”
  • Joe Barton, a Republican congressman and global-warming sceptic, says it will put the American economy in a straitjacket.
  • President Barack Obama has long argued that America should join Europe in regulating planet-cooking carbon. But he has left the details to Congress. And the negotiations to craft a bill that might actually pass have not been pretty.
  • On May 15th Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, the Democratic point-men on climate change in the House of Representatives, unveiled a bill that would give away 85% of carbon permits for nothing, with only 15% being auctioned.
  • Giving away permits creates several problems.
  • First, it generates no money, thereby royally messing up Mr Obama’s budget.
  • Second, it means that the permits go not to those who value them most (as in an auction) but to those whom the government favours.
  • Another problem with Waxman-Markey is its complexity. It includes a dizzying array of handouts, mandates and technical standards.
  • Meanwhile, Mr Obama continues to attack climate change from other angles.
  • On May 19th he announced that he would impose tougher fuel-efficiency standards.
  • Mr Obama admitted that more fuel-efficient cars might cost more. But he promised that motorists would save thousands of dollars by cutting their fuel bills. In fact, they can already cut their fuel bills by buying smaller cars, but most choose not to.
  • Mr Obama could discourage petrol use more directly and efficiently by taxing the stuff, but that would be unpopular.
  • Ideally, politicians who want to save the planet would be honest with voters about how much this will cost. But America’s leaders do not seem to think Americans are ready for straight talk about energy.

read the entire article at … http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13702826

Posted in Congress, climate change, energy, leadership | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

* the Israeli settlements in the West Bank: natural growth or a policy of expansion?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 6, 2009

Ethan Bronner writes in today’s NYT (6-6-09) …

Israel showing Gaza & the West Bank

Israel showing Gaza & the West Bank

  • Why is President Obama focusing such attention on the building of homes by Israeli Jews in the West Bank?
  • While every administration has objected to Israeli settlement building in occupied lands, the Obama administration has selected it as the opening issue that could begin to untie the Gordian knot of the conflict.
  • “Obama may have found the soft underbelly of Israel, because ending settlements is a consensus issue in the world, among American Jewry and even among a majority of Israelis,” said Yossi Beilin, a former leftist minister and member of Parliament.

natural growth?

  • The issue of natural growth has surfaced so prominently because while the Israeli government presents it as a simple humane need to make room for expanding families, the data show that settler growth has been enormous in recent years and nearly all of it has been labeled natural growth.

In 2003, Israel and the Palestinians signed the so-called road map for a two-state solution, calling on

  • Israel to freeze all settlements,
  • and on the Palestinians to dismantle terror networks.
  • Neither has done so.

The Israelis say they had unwritten agreements with the Bush administration to continue building, as long as no new settlements were built.

  • Bush officials say that is only partially true.
  • The Obama administration says such winks and nods are over.

It is signaling the Arab world that it is shifting policy. Whether it does so, and how the Netanyahu government responds, will make for high drama in the coming months.

read the entire article at … http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/world/middleeast/06mideast.html?hp

Posted in Israel, international, war & terror | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »