Displaying posts published in

November 2015

Eugene Kontorovich: Europe Mislabels Israel (The New York Times!)

Eugene Kontorovich is a professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.
THIS week the European Commission announced guidelines suggesting that Israeli products from areas that came under its control in 1967 be labeled “Israeli Settlement” products and not “Made in Israel” as they have been until now. The policy carves out a special legal rule for Israel, not only contradicting the European Union’s own official positions on these issues, but also going against rulings of European national courts, and violating basic tenets of the World Trade Organization.

Faced with criticism from both the right and the left in Israel and the United States, the European Union claims its action is merely “technical,” rather than politically motivated or punitive. Yet this is belied by the fact that the measure comes in response to explicitly political demands for labeling by some member states’ foreign ministers, as well as anti-Israel NGOs.

In fact, the labeling controversy must be viewed as just one step in a broader, purposeful and gradual escalation of anti-Israel measures by the European Union. Two years ago, the commission promulgated a regulation that barred spending money on Israeli academic, scientific or cultural projects in the West Bank or Golan Heights. Then the union began refusing to allow imports of certain Israeli agricultural products. Last year, 15 European states issued warnings, alerting people to unspecified legal dangers of interacting with Israeli settlements. These steps, while supposedly motivated by what the European Union sees as Israel’s occupation of territory, have been applied only to Israel, and not to other countries regarded as occupiers in international law, such as Morocco or Turkey.

Martin Indyk’s latest low : Ruthie Blum

Just when you thought you’d heard it all from professional peace promoter Martin Indyk, he goes and one-ups himself. The ability to do so when the policies he has espoused over the decades have consistently backfired is an accomplishment in and of itself. And it explains why he was appointed twice to serve as U.S. ambassador to Israel and also filled the role of assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs.

Indyk, author of “Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East,” has always held the position that an accord is possible between Israel and the Palestinians — if the “two sides” would only trust one another. This, of course, is why he was a perfect fit for Secretary of State John Kerry, under whom he was dispatched to Israel as an envoy to broker a deal.

Well, that didn’t work out so well, and he quit after nine months to return to his full-time job as director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. He, like many peace processers, feels more at home presenting global strategies in a think tank than confronting the need for actual tanks in the real Middle East the rest of us occupy.

This is not to say that Indyk is uncomfortable in Israel. On the contrary, he loves visiting the country where he is treated like a king by the chattering classes, while enjoying a cappuccino or two from balconies overlooking the Mediterranean.

$1B a year for no-show jobs: How the feds forgot about merit by Betsy McCaughey

What’s the best place to get a no-show job? The federal government.

Uncle Sam pays corrupt or incompetent employees not to come to work – because it’s easier than firing them.

Never mind the cost to taxpayers.

Congress is trying to get to the bottom of this outrageous waste. But so far, true to form, the Obama administration is stonewalling.

In fact, President Obama and Democrats in Congress are pushing for even more perks and pay hikes for federal workers. But get ready for a battle, because the new speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, is vowing to slow the gravy train.

Right now, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is pressing for answers about the $3.1 billion spent on no-show jobs in the last three years. The Department of Homeland Security has paid 88 employees to stay home for at least a year, including three who have been twiddling their thumbs for three years.

The preposterous explanation from the DHS is that the allegations against these workers are so serious they can’t be allowed back to work, but not conclusive enough to fire them. The Veterans Administration also kept 46 employees on paid leave for a year or longer with explanations that Grassley calls “vague, incomplete or incoherent.”

ANDREW C. MCCARTHY : STOP PAYING FOR COLLEGE

I have a proposal: Let’s turn the whole damn campus into a “space of healing.”

Such “spaces,” we learn in Rich’s excellent column on the Mizzou mau-mauing (to be read in conjunction with similarly insightful columns by Kevin and our friend Roger Kimball on last week’s Yale mau-mauing), are what university administrators failed to “create” so the coddled children could grieve over … well … everything.

As always, there are pretexts aplenty – purported racial insults (you’ll have to forgive me – or not, who cares? – if I won’t believe these incidents happened as described until that is convincingly proved) and, of course, the killing of a teenager who was attacking a police officer right after knocking off a convenience store. Speaking of Michael Brown, Columbia Law school students who claimed to be too “traumatized” by the Ferguson grand jury’s decision not to indict the police officer he attacked were permitted to postpone their exams – evidently, a classroom with a test placed on the desks is no longer a “safe space” on the American campus.

Can we please stop pretending that this is anything other than what it is? As an institution taken over by the hard Left, “higher education” simply wants to confiscate more of our money and obliterate any remaining vestiges of meritocracy. The agitators know that if they agitate enough, no matter how trifling the pretext, they will get concessions.

So let’s stop paying for it.

WILLIAM R. HAWKINS: TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP- CRITICS-RIGHT AND LEFT

The secret text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement has finally been made public. No time has been lost in debating its terms. Congress adopted a “fast track” procedure that limits floor debate and bans the filibuster and any consideration of amendments to the legislation required to implement the agreement by changing American law. President Barack Obama would like a vote by the end of this year. However, due to a short and crowded schedule, Congress is unlikely to get to the issue until next year. Thus, everyone will have time to voice opinions and interpretations.

Before getting into the specific details of the text, one thing must be understood from the outset. TPP is not about “free trade” in the sense of that great sophistry of economic theory. If this was about academic notions it would not have taken diplomats from 11 countries six years to negotiate its terms (after earlier attempts collapsed). As Alexander Hamilton noted, “There are some who maintain that trade will regulate itself [but] this is one of those speculative paradoxes…rejected by every man acquainted with commercial history.” Each nation entered the talks with the objective of gaining an advantage for its own interests. The verdict on the TPP should rest entirely on whether sober analysis concludes that the agreement promises net gains to U.S.-based producers.

Stopping the Flow of Illegal Immigrants By The Editors —

Donald Trump, who leapt to the front of the Republican presidential field with his tough immigration stance, promises to deport every illegal immigrant residing in the country in less than two years, with the help of a “deportation force” — and, naturally, critics are warning of jackbooted thugs and midnight raids. There is no need for either. Much of our problem can be resolved through more modest — and less inflammatory — measures.

Estimates from the Center for Migration Studies and the Pew Research Center show that, of the 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States, approximately 2.5 million arrived after Barack Obama’s inauguration. Yet the overall number of illegal immigrants in the country has remained fairly static, meaning that illegal immigrants have been coming and going in about equal numbers. Why? Because, contrary to much political rhetoric, many illegal immigrants are not here to stay, and so are very sensitive to incentives: When the prospect of profitable work outweighs the risk of falling afoul of law enforcement, they come; when it doesn’t, they leave.

Jonah Goldberg:Netanyahu’s Framing of Middle East Situation Is Spot-on

Americans could learn a thing or two from Bibi Netanyahu.

The Israeli prime minister was in Washington this week to receive the American Enterprise Institute’s Irving Kristol Award. He made some controversial remarks — at least controversial at AEI, where I am a fellow, and where the freedom agenda is alive and well — about the need to be realistic about what’s going on in the Middle East. Sometimes, he said, brutal dictators are better than the real-world alternatives: even more brutal Islamist movements hell-bent (or, if you prefer, paradise-bent) to conquer the world.

Less controversial but more intriguing was his description of the turmoil in the Middle East. “The core of the conflicts in the Middle East is the battle between modernity and early primitive medievalism,” Netanyahu explained.

Everyone understood what he meant, of course. The Islamic State believes the Muslim world took a wrong turn more than a thousand years ago.

The Taliban, the Wahhabis, al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and all the other Islamists share this same worldview to one extent or another. Not every Islamist believes in crucifying Christians or throwing acid in the face of little girls going to school. But they all reject modernity, pluralism, secularism, democracy, and, in many cases, even science.

Obama Gives Up On Bush’s Two-State Solution by David Singer

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House this week has confirmed President Obama’s assessment that the much vaunted two-state solution proposed by Obama’s predecessor President George W. Bush on 30 April 2003 (the Roadmap) will not happen whilst Obama is President – or indeed ever. Obama’s conclusion was announced by White House Middle East Advisor Rob Malley ahead of Netanyahu’s arrival at the White House after an absence of thirteen months.

“The president has reached the conclusion that right now – barring a major shift – the parties are not going to be in a position to negotiate a final status agreement,”

The major shift required – recognition of Israel as the Jewish State – is a pure pipedream. Speaking the language of diplomatic doublespeak – Netanyahu told Obama that Israel’s negotiating position was immutable:

“I want to make it clear that we have not given up our hope for peace. We’ll never give up the hope for peace. And I remain committed to a vision of peace of two states for two peoples, a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state.”

Israel had flagged demilitarization and Jewish statehood as non-negotiable positions it required for concluding successful negotiations with the Palestinian Authority when Israel listed its 14 Reservations to the Roadmap’s terms twelve years ago.

Fighting fire with fire: Caroline Glick

Maybe the EU did us a favor on Wednesday. At least now we know what we’re up against.

With the publication of its new guidelines to member states encouraging them to label Jewish products produced beyond the 1949 armistice lines, the Europeans finally convinced us that they hate us. They don’t care about peace. They don’t care about the Palestinians. They just want to harm Israel.

This is old news for long time EU watchers. Since late 2000, Europe has inexorably ratcheted up its hostile treatment of the Jewish state to the detriment of chances of peace.

Take for instance the timing of the EU’s first official act of open economic warfare against Israel.

On July 29, 2013 US Secretary of State John Kerry brought the heads of the Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams together in Washington to officially launch a new round of peace talks.

The same day, the EU announced that starting at the beginning of 2014, it would be ending all joint projects with and all funding from the EU and its member governments of Israeli entities located or operating in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights. The only exceptions to the funding and cooperation ban were Israeli organizations working to harm Israeli control over the areas, and non-Jewish Israeli entities.

NY Times Whitewashes the Palestinian Child Death Cult Moral equivalency and victim blaming. by Ari Lieberman

On October 12, two Arabs cousins, one 17 (some sources say 15) and the other 13 set out on a mission to hunt and kill Jews. Armed with knives, the felonious duo traveled to Pisgat Zeev, a quiet Jewish community in northern Jerusalem to carry out their act of savagery.

Their first target was a 25 year old man who sustained serious injuries but nonetheless managed to escape his attackers. Their second target was a 13-year old boy on his bicycle who had just exited a candy shop. They stabbed him in the neck and kicked him in the head while he was on the ground before being chased off by bystanders. The boy was brought to the hospital in critical condition, hovering between life and death but miraculously recovered from his dreadful injuries.

The stabbing spree finally came to an end when police officers shot and killed the older knife-wielding assailant while the younger felon, Ahmed Manasra, was run over by a car driven by a civilian. Manasra was given life-saving treatment at Hadassah Hospital where he informed his treating physicians that he “went there to stab Jews.” That candid and horrifying admission was corroborated by CCTV footage showing both assailants armed with long knives prowling for their victims and then attacking them mercilessly.