Displaying posts published in

September 2018

Trump Backs Two-State Solution to Israeli-Palestinian Conflict U.S. leader shifts stance on conflict and promises to release a peace plan within four monthsBy Felicia Schwartz

President Trump said he backs a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in a shift from his previous stance, and promised to present his long-awaited peace plan in the next four months.

Mr. Trump, speaking ahead of a meeting with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, previously has said he would back either one or two states, whichever the two sides decided between themselves.

On Wednesday, he changed tack. His support for the concept, which has undergirded efforts of American administrations for decades, is the most concrete detail available about his administration’s peace plan.

“I like two-state solution,” Mr. Trump told reporters Wednesday alongside Mr. Netanyahu. “That’s what I think works best.” He turned to the Israeli leader and added, “You may have a different feeling. I don’t think so.”

Mr. Trump said he expects to have something in the next “two to three to four months,” adding, “I really believe something will happen. It is a dream of mine to be able to get that done prior to the end of my first term.”

Mr. Trump’s comments forced Mr. Netanyahu to be more specific about his own stance on two states. After endorsing two states in 2009, he has since tried to keep his stance vague.

Mr. Netanyahu said in a briefing with reporters he would back a Palestinian state, but that it must be under Israeli security control. “I am willing for the Palestinians to have the authority to rule themselves without the authority to harm us,” Mr. Netanyahu said, adding, “I am sure that any U.S. peace plan will reflect that principle to a great extent, maybe even entirely.”

Palestinian leaders say the Trump administration isn’t an honest peace mediator, saying it’s biased toward Israel. They have refused contact with the Trump administration since December, when Mr. Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and announced the U.S. would move its embassy there, a city which the Palestinians claim as their own future capital.

Since then the U.S. has taken a series of punitive measures aimed at pressuring the Palestinians to return to discussions, including slashing $250 million in bilateral assistance, cutting off aid to the U.N. Palestinian refugee agency and closing the Palestine Liberation Organization’s office in Washington.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday cited those actions and rejected the U.S. as a mediator to the conflict. “It has become important to convene an international peace conference that would lead to the formation of an international mechanism to sponsor the peace process,” he said, according to the Palestinian official news agency.

Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, chief negotiator Jason Greenblatt and U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman have been formulating a plan for more than a year. But they haven’t revealed any details.

American officials said the plan is near completion, and includes political and economic components. One important consideration on when to present the plan will be the timing of Israeli elections, which are expected at some point in the next year.

Naftali Bennett, a frequent challenger of Mr. Netanyahu’s to his right and the education minister, criticized Mr. Trump’s backing of two states, saying that as long as his Jewish Home party is part of Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition, “there will not be a Palestinian state, which would be a disaster for Israel.”

The comments come a day ahead of what are expected to be dueling speeches at the U.N. from Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas, who will speak first.

An Israeli official said Mr. Netanyahu had requested a meeting with Mr. Abbas on the sidelines of the U.N., but the Palestinians declined to meet. A U.S. official said that the Palestinians also didn’t accept requests from the Trump administration to meet on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.

Still, Mr. Trump said Wednesday that he believed that Palestinians will eventually talk to the U.S. about its peace plan.

“They want to come back to the table,” he said.

Understanding where the burden of proof really rests. Adam White

https://www.weeklystandard.com/adam-j-white/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-and-the-senates-burden-of-proof
Understanding where the burden of proof really rests.

As the Senate considers Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation that Judge Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her 30 years ago, senators find themselves asking a basic question familiar to all lawyers: Who bears the burden of proof—the accuser or the accused?

But the greater burden is the one borne by the Senate itself, which now must come to a decision on Kavanaugh’s nomination, and do so in the manner that will best promote transparency and fact-finding in this nomination and all future nominations.

The “burden of proof” issue is the crux of the debate surrounding Dr. Ford’s accusations against Judge Kavanaugh precisely because she has produced no evidence to support her accusations against him. She has no physical evidence, though that is unsurprising given that she is alleging a three-decades-old-crime. More surprising, and more disconcerting, is the fact that the direct witnesses that she identified disclaim any knowledge of the crime she says they were present for; the fact that her therapist’s notes of her statements neither name Kavanaugh nor square with her other specific allegations; and the fact that Senator Feinstein herself did not pursue the allegations until after the regular confirmation hearings had ended and Kavanaugh was poised for a successful vote.

In sum, Dr. Ford’s accusation against Kavanaugh is unsupported save for the accusation itself, and those who say that she told them about Kavanaugh in the last handful of years, three decades after the alleged incident. And Kavanaugh, for his part, denies the accusation categorically—he denies assaulting her at any time or any place, including at the unspecified house party in an unknown house during an unknown year.

So is that enough for the senators to decide to vote for Kavanaugh, Ford’s accusation notwithstanding? Judge Kavanaugh’s supporters think so, pointing to the traditional criminal-law standard of presuming the defendant’s innocence and requiring the prosecutor to prove otherwise.

A Judicial Confirmation Hearing Is Not a Trial By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings-not-a-trial

Kavanaugh’s hearing has become a farce.

I’ve never thought the big Ford–Kavanaugh hearing scheduled for Thursday would actually happen. Maybe I’ll be proved wrong, but I’ve never believed Christine Blasey Ford wants to testify. This hearing is not going to settle the issue of what, if anything, happened 36 years ago — which, as I’ve noted, is why there is no point in having the hearing.

Senator Chuck Grassley, the Judiciary Committee chairman, should just invite affidavits from the witnesses and call it a day. Democrats, in any event, would rather have the specter of Ford’s testimony than the real thing, given that the latter will highlight: (a) her inability to recall and relate rudimentary details, (b) the fact that she did not utter a word about the alleged sexual assault for 30 years, (c) the discrepancies between her current version of events and the notes of what she told her therapist, and (d) the fact that the other witnesses she has identified do not corroborate her story. Moreover, now that Republicans have reportedly retained an experienced female litigator to conduct the questioning, there is no longer the prospect of video clips featuring Ford being grilled by old white guys — grist for what Democrats hoped would be their “War on Women 2.0” campaign ads.

Ford’s legal team continues to add new demands. The latest is a push to have two “trauma experts” and Ford’s polygrapher testify. The purpose of these outlandish proposals is likely to prompt denials that would allow Ford to bow out of the hearing, blaming purported GOP intransigence and insensitivity.

This underscores that the point of the hearing is being lost.

DAVID GOLDMAN REVIEWS “IN GOOD FAITH” BY SCOTT SHAY

http://www.atimes.com/article/not-by-bread-or-rice-alone/

Book review: In Good Faith, by Scott Shay. Post Hill Press; New York 2018. Hardbound; 528 pages with index.

Scott Shay’s ably written book fills an important gap in the literature on religion available to a nonspecialist audience. It will be an important resource for many Asians who are struggling with the Western monotheistic religions. One would hope to see it soon in Asian-language editions.

Today, materialism is ubiquitous. But no one can blame Asians for following the trend. The death of perhaps 30 million Chinese during the Great Leap Forward of the 1950s is a living memory. Today’s is the first generation of Chinese that does not live in the shadow of hunger. Up to one-third of Indian children suffer to some degree from malnutrition.

Asia’s enormous economic advances of the past 30 years have lifted most of its people out of dire poverty, and that has taken up their undivided attention.

At some point, though, many of the Asians who today think mainly about material advancement will look for a greater purpose in life. The celebrated Asian virtues of family, education and work discipline have proven the robustness of Asian culture beyond doubt.

But there appears to be something missing in Asian life: a sense of a greater purpose, perhaps. And that is bound up with a yearning for justice, for the dignity of every individual.

MY SAY: I HAVE GENDER DYSPHORIA

Who would have thought that in my dotage, I would suffer from gender dysphoria. No! not what you think. The word “dysphoria” is defined thus: “a state of unease or generalized dissatisfaction with life.”-It’s a state of unease and anxiety-the opposite of euphoria. In my case it is provoked by the behavior of women- in the academy, in journalism and in Congress.

I am ashamed to share the gender with ninnies like Gillibrand, Hirono, Feinstein, Waters, McCaskill, Harris, the harridans of “The View” and those who judge and convict without evidence; who call a Kangaroo court a “fair hearing” ; who have blurred the difference between dirty talk and real sexual harassment.

#Me no! rsk

Accusation Studies By Peter W. Wood

https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/26/

Anyone can make an accusation. Me, too. I accuse American higher education of fostering an epidemic of unprovable and often unfounded accusations; accusations aimed not at seeking justice but at wounding real or imagined enemies; accusations that aim to shred reputations rather than uncover truth; accusations that give the accuser a sense of power unmoored from any sense of responsibility.

Accusation has become an art form in the academy. A really successful accusation unleashes a public furor that completely bypasses the question, “Is it true?” Instead it ignites instant outrage. It sweeps away everything in its path. It has its own logical whirlpools: If it weren’t true, why would she say it? Or: Even if there is no evidence, it is the sort of thing that might have happened. An effective accusation silences the doubts of those disposed to believe it. Then it attacks anyone who declines to endorse it. Those who doubt the validity of the accusation are part of the problem. They are allies of the accused and parties after the fact to the disgusting behavior of the accused.

This art form has been perfected over the last several decades in the crucible of campus victimology. The gold standard, of course, is the accusation of racism. As actual racism in American society has faded and die-hard racists have retreated to obscure corners and sparsely attended rallies, accusations of racism have only gained power. Accusing people of “implicit racism” or “unconscious privilege” is key. These formulations have the advantage of nullifying whatever the accused might say in his own defense.

That trick has been absorbed into the many other forms of accusation that are rife on campus: accusations of sexism, bigotry towards gays, Islamophobia, classism, etc., and has been adopted as a technique as well by proponents of various causes. If someone expresses doubt in the latest alternative energy scheme, surely it is because he is a hireling of Big Energy and wants to strip-mine the planet. If someone favors control of the nation’s borders and restrictions of immigration, surely it is because she is viciously opposed to human rights.

Trump’s Triumph at the U.N. By Roger Kimball

President Trump’s speech at the United Nations on Tuesday is one of the greatest political speeches ever delivered in peacetime.

Maybe you are like those members of the audience seated in the General Assembly who tittered when the president began his speech noting that, “In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.”

The bureaucrats shifting upon their glutei maximi upon the plush receptacles provided by the custodians of the United Nations may have found the president’s frank statement risible. But their hilarity detracts not one iota from the truth of his observation.

What President Trump said was not braggadocio. It was the unvarnished truth.

What Were They Laughing About Again?
In less than two years, the United States has added some $10 trillion in wealth to its economy. Four million new jobs have been created, and unemployment has plummeted to historic lows. Consumer confidence has soared, while tax reform has put more money in the pockets of average Americans and turbocharged American businesses.

Meanwhile, the President’s attention to the United States military has reversed the decay orchestrated by the Obama Administration, upping military spending to $700 billion this year, $716 billion next year. In short, “the United States is stronger, safer, and a richer country than it was when I assumed office less than two years ago.”

Giggle away, ye bureaucrats, giggle away.

So it is with the president’s speech. Barack Obama is reputed to be an impressive orator. But he never gave a speech that, in substance, could hold a candle to President Trump’s speeches at Warsaw, at Riyadh, before the joint session of Congress last year, or indeed his “rocket man” speech at the United Nations. And this topped them all for forcefulness, clarity, and wisdom.

The forcefulness and clarity, I believe, are acknowledged by everyone, even the president’s opponents. Emblematic passages include his description of ISIS “bloodthirsty killers,” his characterization of Iran as a “brutal regime,” the “world’s leading sponsor of terrorism,” whose leaders “sow chaos, death, and destruction” and “plunder the nation’s resources to enrich themselves and to spread mayhem across the Middle East and far beyond.” All this is patently true, but one is not supposed to utter such things on the floor of the General Assembly.

This is not the usual language of diplomacy. It is the frank argot of truth: a tongue rarely heard in the echo-chambers of the United Nations with its squadrons of translators who translate clichés from one language into another swiftly, accurately, and inconsequentially. How refreshing—though admittedly, how startling it must have been to hear someone deliver an entire speech without lying.

Trump Delivers Powerful UN General Assembly Speech to Disrespectful Audience The President focuses on preserving national sovereignty. Joseph Klein

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271423/trump-delivers-powerful-un-general-assembly-speech-joseph-klein

President Donald Trump delivered his second speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, September 25th. Its overarching theme was the primacy of national sovereignty as the best organizing principle to help foster prosperity, peace and freedom in the world.

At the outset of his speech, the president was met with derisive laughter from the assembled world leaders, ministers and ambassadors in the audience. They were mocking his claim that, in less than two years, “my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.” In a quick rejoinder to the laughter, President Trump smiled and said, “I wasn’t expecting that reaction but that’s ok.” Then he proved his case with a recitation of facts demonstrating a strengthened economy at home, a stronger military, and more assertive U.S. leadership on a broad range of global issues. In the year since the president’s 2017 remarks to the General Assembly, the Trump Administration has diminished major threats to world peace, including the imminent threats posed by the North Korean regime and ISIS. President Trump has proven that the United States can engage fully with other nations on the world scene to surmount serious challenges to peace and security without sacrificing its own national sovereignty.

“We believe, that when nations respect the rights of their neighbors and defend the interests of their people,” President Trump said, “they can better work together to secure the blessings of safety, prosperity, and peace.” As far as America is concerned, President Trump made it unmistakably clear that it will always honor its own national sovereignty and protect its own people over any dictates coming from unaccountable global governance institutions. “America is governed by Americans,” he told the General Assembly attendees who sat on their hands throughout much of the president’s speech, shook their heads or stared blankly ahead, and only mildly applauded at the speech’s conclusion. “America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance,” the president remarked.

President Trump singled out the International Criminal Court (ICC) for criticism, which, he said “has no legitimacy or authority.” The ICC, he added, “claims near universal jurisdiction over the citizens of every country, violating all principles of justice, fairness and due process.” He vowed to “never surrender America’s sovereignty” to such an “unelected, unaccountable” globalist body. The president also reiterated that the United States will not participate in the new global compact on migration. “Migration should not be governed by an international body, unaccountable to our own citizens.”

Transgenderism Is No Longer a Fringe Issue By Madeleine Kearns

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/transgenderism-is-no-longer-a-fringe-issue/

In 2001 in the United Kingdom, an individual named Karen White saw the inside of a prison cell for child abuse. Then, in 2003, Karen White raped a woman. Then in 2016, White raped two more women.

Her Majesty’s Prison Service thought that the best place to Karen White, while the rape trial was pending, would be a women’s prison — there White assaulted female inmates. (Still with me?) The prosecutor explained, “Her penis was erect and sticking out of the top of her trousers.”

“Her penis”? Strange — “women don’t have penises” — many might think, just as a student at Durham University did when he tweeted that exact phrase. But because of transgender orthodoxy, this is no longer a reasonable thought to share. He learned the hard way:

Less than a month after sending that tweet, I had lost my position as president-elect of Humanist Students as well as my role as assistant editor of Durham University’s philosophy society’s undergraduate journal, Critique. I was also given the boot as co-editor-in-chief of Durham University’s online student magazine, the Bubble. All for saying something that many people would surely agree with.

Now perhaps he might have included some tactful qualifications. For instance, he might also have tweeted something like:

Gender dysphoria is a medically and morally complicated condition, and it is decent to treat such people with compassion and tact.

Or:

Some adults with gender dysphoria may prefer a transgender identity or surgery and — though they should be provided with all the available information — this decision is ultimately the (adult) patient’s prerogative.

But I wager that it would not have made the slightest bit of difference. The student’s crime was stating the obvious; those who do so with nuance seldom fare better. You see, when it comes to transgender doctrine, the options available are an ebullient celebration or total silence. Everything else is “hate speech.”

Think I exaggerate? What else could explain why British MPs were not allowed to debate the issues raised by Karen White’s case. As James Kirkup over at The Spectator writes:

Bound for a runoff down in Brazil By Silvio Canto, Jr.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/bound_for_a_runoff_down_in_brazil.html

Down in Brazil, there is a presidential election in a few weeks. The election is happening in the context of a slow-growing economy, corruption battles, violence out of control, and the stabbing of a presidential candidate.

The latest is from Reuters:

Fernando Haddad, the presidential candidate for Brazil’s leftist Workers Party (PT), is closing the gap with poll-leading far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro for an Oct. 7 first-round vote and would beat him in a runoff, a survey released Monday showed.

Bolsonaro held steady at 28 percent of voter approval in the first round as compared to the same Ibope poll released last week. Haddad gained three percentage points to hit 22 percent, according to the survey, released by the Estado de S.Paulo newspaper and the Globo TV network.

We will see.

I did speak with a friend down in Sao Paulo yesterday. He basically agrees with the poll and the suggestion that Haddad would win the runoff. At the same time, my friend said that the issues, the violence and corruption, favor Mr. Bolsonaro.

It’s true that Bolsonaro has a little Trump in him and that he often speaks without thinking. He has promised a no-nonsense policy against criminal elements.

Of course, the bottom line is how the other candidates react and who they endorse in the second round.

So let’s come back to this after the first round in a couple of weeks.