RUTHFULLY YOURS

In the long-term absence of peace with the Palestinians, better to cease pursuing the unattainable and adopt policies that can strengthen the country at home and abroad.

Many thanks to Elliott Abrams and Amnon Lord for their thoughtful responses to my essay. Drawing on his own extensive experience, Abrams aptly highlights how the endless pursuit of an unattainable Israel-Palestinian agreement entails costs for the United States as well as for Israel, and also how the chaos currently sweeping the Middle East underlines the importance of preserving the region’s one remaining island of stability—and the folly of embarking on yet another destabilizing grand experiment. Lord, for his part, correctly emphasizes the need to maintain Israeli morale and “the national sense of justice and self-confidence,” a crucial addition to my own list of what Israel must do on the home front. He also reminds us of the hopeful significance of Israel’s burgeoning relations with both Asia and “moderate” Arab states.

Lord points out that Israel’s own early history, before and after the state’s establishment, was characterized by strategies somewhat akin to the “cold war” model I propose in my essay. I agree, and I’d be delighted to see someone draw up a Hebrew-language version of such a strategy for Israel along the same lines, with examples drawn primarily from the country’s own Zionist experience. As Lord suggests, such an exercise, by providing a needed corrective to the course adhered to by Israel’s government in recent decades, might help persuade today’s Israelis that a change is actually feasible.

“Permit me to issue a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws,” so, allegedly, once said Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812). Last week, Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen took advantage of falling commodity prices, turmoil in markets, an anemic recovery in the U.S. and weakening economies overseas – especially China – to leave the rate on Fed Funds at the zero to twenty-five basis points where it has been since December 17, 2008. She also cited a lack of inflation and concern that a stronger dollar would further inhibit economic recovery at home.

What she did not mention was the effect of higher interest rates on debt owed by the federal government and, thus, its fattening impact on the deficit. Federal debt is about $18.2 trillion. That number excludes debt owed by state and local governments, as well as funds owed by agencies. And, of course, it does not include future obligations of social welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Deficits in fiscal 2015 will add about $400 billion to existing debt. A one percent increase in interest rates would up the deficit by about 40 percent. Should rates revert to normal levels, the deficit would rise to a trillion dollars. Ms. Yellen is surely mindful of the salutary effect low interest rates have had on annual federal deficits.

The Common Core debate rolls merrily along. It’s made the occasional appearance in the contest for the GOP nomination — popping up occasionally between new Trumpisms and debate postmortems — and as states have released results on the new Common Core tests. This has all fueled any number of claims about what Americans think of the Common Core, much of it informed by push polls and agenda-driven analysis. The result, as one Washington Post headline put it earlier this year, is that the media have generally concluded: “Conservatives hate Common Core. The rest of America? Who knows.”

In truth, there are numbers that offer a clear take on public sentiment and how it’s evolved when it comes to the Common Core. There are two national, annual polls of attitudes towards education: one by Gallup/Phi Delta Kappa and the other by Education Next (of which I’m an executive editor). Today, these are the only credible, independent numbers providing a year-over-year measure of national sentiment.

Conveniently, both organizations released their 2015 surveys a few weeks back, timed to coincide with the start of the 2015–16 school year. Between 2010 and 2015, each survey featured two Common Core questions that were asked more than once.

The early primary debates are great entertainment. With a sprinkling of Trump, we look for the candidates to come off script. We look for animosity — both personal and political — that distinguishes the candidates from one another. We look for charisma and moments of inspiration. But, ultimately, we’re looking for entertainment. Still, we must remember that presidential primary debates exist for more than our amusement. Illuminating a candidate’s character and variable responses to pressure, debates inform America’s democratic choices.

Debates also matter for U.S. national security: Foreign-government officials are watching the debates, too. Working through diplomats, spies, and analysts, they are assessing who might win the GOP nomination and what that victory might mean for U.S. foreign policy come 2017. In turn, as President Obama’s term winds down, foreign governments will increasingly make policy in consideration of his likely successor.

Ever since then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton announced a “reset” of relations with Russia in 2009, the consequences of six years of failed U.S. policy toward Russia have played out in the annexation of Crimea and the battlefields of eastern Ukraine. This policy has also helped prolong the humanitarian and strategic nightmare that Syria has become.

Somehow, as the evidence of failure grows, President Obama still can’t seem to understand Vladimir Putin’s goals. Putin wants nothing less than the recognition of Russia as a geopolitical force. He has already achieved this in Europe, and he is now pursuing the same goal in the Middle East, exploiting the vacuum left by President Obama’s “leading from behind” approach.

Since the outbreak of the revolt in 2011 against Russian ally Bashar al-Assad, President Obama and his aides have tried to involve Putin in a negotiated solution. Rounds of negotiations in Geneva produced a theoretical framework for a “transition” process in Syria that did not require Assad to step down. Time and again, Russia has defended Assad at the United Nations and prevented meaningful actions to hasten the end of the conflict.

The last few weeks have gone rather badly for the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. First, there was the Matisyahu debacle where BDS activists tried to have Jewish reggae sensation Matisyahu banned from the Rototom Sunsplash music festival on account of his pro-Israel views. Event organizers initially folded to the BDS pressure and barred Matisyahu from performing, but following an international outcry over what was a blatantly anti-Semitic action, red-faced officials quickly reversed themselves. Matisyahu made his appearance and sang his hit song “Jerusalem,” which is laced with references strongly supportive of Israel. Score one for Israel, zero for BDS.

Over the weekend, BDS suffered another stinging reversal. On September 15, in a move largely characterized as symbolic, the city council in Iceland’s capital of Reykjavik voted to boycott all Israeli products “for as long as the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory continues.” The insidious motion was introduced by known radical leftist and Israel-hater Björk Vilhelmsdóttir and passed unanimously. Iceland’s imports from Israel last year totaled just under $6,000,000, but the percentage earmarked for Reykjavik is unclear.

Vilhelmsdóttir’s husband, Sveinn Runar Hauksson, is a well-known anti-Israel and anti-American agitator and chairs the Iceland-Palestine Association, which advocates the boycott of Israeli products and supports the Hamas terror group. In 2010, Hauksson met with Hamas terror chieftain Ismail Haniyeh and was pictured presenting him with an award. Hauksson is apparently unperturbed by the Hamas charter, which calls for the annihilation of Jews globally.

All religions are equal, but aren’t some religions more equal than others?

Editor’s note: When asked recently on “Meet the Press” whether he would support a Muslim as president of the United States, Ben Carson replied, “I absolutely would not agree with that.” He added: “If [the candidate’s faith is] inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter.” Does it matter if a candidate is a devout Muslim? On this occasion, Frontpage is re-publishing below William Kilpatrick’s article from our October 19, 2010 issue, as it provides an in-depth exploration of that question.

President Eisenhower famously observed that “our form of government has no sense unless it is founded on a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is.” Now that we are beginning to see the consequences when Muslims act on their deeply felt faith, it’s time to revisit Eisenhower’s statement. The question is, can we still afford to take an “I don’t care what it is” attitude toward religion? In short, does the content of a religion matter? Or are we to assume that all religions share the same essential truths, as Eisenhower seemed to assume?

It’s ironic that the part of Eisenhower’s statement which evoked criticism in the early 1950’s would pass almost unnoticed today, while the part that seemed unremarkable then would be challenged in many quarters today. When Eisenhower said, “our form of government has no sense unless it is founded on a deeply felt religious faith,” he was merely echoing a widespread belief. Even William O. Douglas, the most liberal member of the Supreme Court at the time, and not a particularly religious man, opined in a 1952 decision that “We are a religious people, whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Since then, however, we’ve grown accustomed to the notion that religion ought to have little or no influence on our government and institutions. More and more, religion is looked upon as something that should be confined to the private sphere. As a result, religion has been pushed steadily out of public life—one Christmas crèche, one school prayer, one court decision at a time. These days, most of our institutions, particularly the press, the courts, and the schools, seem to presume that secularism is the officially established belief.

Hamas-linked CAIR wants a Muslim President, and wants Carson to drop out for not wanting one.

If Ibrahim Hooper of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has any say in the matter, whoever the next President is, it won’t be Ben Carson. “He is not qualified to be president of the United States,” fumed CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper, no doubt an unimpeachable authority on who is and is not qualified to be President, on Sunday. “You cannot hold these kinds of views and at the same time say you will represent all Americans, of all faiths and backgrounds.” What views? Carson said: “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” He said that this was because Islam contradicted important Constitutional principles.

CAIR, designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, sent out an email Sunday saying it would hold a news conference demanding that Carson withdraw from the presidential race for daring to say these things. “Mr. Carson clearly does not understand or care about the Constitution, which states that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office,’” said CAIR top dog Nihad Awad. “We call on our nation’s political leaders – across the political spectrum – to repudiate these unconstitutional and un-American statements and for Mr. Carson to withdraw from the presidential race.”

The expectation pictured Jeb Bush rolling out of Florida and riding his family’s political machine into the White House. Donald Trump, buffoon and blowhard, has not only derailed the front runner, he has opened the way for another oustider, a far more credible contender.
A poll, taken immediately after the second Republican candidates’ debate, shows Carly Fiorina now in a tie with Donald Trump for first place among Republican primary voters. This may be the first sign that Donald Trump’s huge lead amongst an angry and alienated base is starting to evaporate.

Trump’s appeal was always visceral and emotional. His supporters could vent, knowing full well that they will not be required to pull a lever in a polling booth until 2016. Trump’s brashness, rudeness and narcissism could be deployed against a squishy GOP establishment to the accompaniment of wild cheers from the conservative base, whilst his inconsistencies or, indeed, any consideration as to whether he was fit to be president could be safely deferred by his current supporters. Jonah Goldberg and other writers from National Review are right to denounce Trump as a populist fraud. However, they may be missing the political dynamic which will be the rise of the viable outsider.

Say good-night, Gracie:

The United States will increase its cap on the number of refugees it admits and resettles to 85,000 in the coming year and 100,000 in the following year, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Sunday. The additional refugees, up from 70,000 in the current fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, will come from countries around the world. But the increase largely reflects the 10,000 Syrian refugees that the White House has promised to resettle over the next 12 months.

Naturally, this is being couched in Alinskyite terms: making the enemy (us) live up to their own book of rules.

“This step is in keeping with America’s best tradition as a land of second chances and a beacon of hope,” Kerry said in announcing the increase during a visit to Berlin to discuss the Syrian refugee crisis with his German counterpart, Frank Walter Steinmeier. Even before Syrian refugees began streaming into Europe in recent weeks, the State Department had been considering a modest increase of about 5,000 refugees, including more from Congo, where human rights abuses are rampant. At the end of every fiscal year, the State Department announces the new target number for refugees.