By Zalman Shoval, ISRAEL HAYOM
Clouds have formed on the U.S.-Israeli diplomatic horizon, almost without our noticing. Whereas our prime minister has made it abundantly clear that a Palestinian government that includes Hamas cannot be a partner for peace, U.S. officials have said that the administration does not oppose the Doha declaration — that is, the agreement brokered by the Qatari king on Feb. 5 between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas political bureau chief Khaled Mashaal.
Everyone knows that tornadoes start small, and we need to stop this one before it spirals into a massive storm. Washington’s statement, to the effect that it does not oppose the declaration, is no doubt reserved. And it is further conditioned on the terms set by the Middle East Quartet, including that Hamas must halt terrorism and abide by existing agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, which implies it must recognize Israel. But not only would such recognition not be explicit, Hamas has no intention of changing its basic ideology, which brazenly calls for Israel to be removed from Islam’s Middle East domain.
The Doha agreement has elicited outrage not just in Israel, but in Jordan as well. The kingdom fears radical Islamic forces could gain ascendancy in its back yard. On top of that, the intra-Palestinian agreement could undermine the agreements and arrangements Jordan has signed with Israel, which serve as a linchpin for its national security doctrine. This makes the U.S. stance all the more perplexing as it could be interpreted as a stamp of approval for Hamas, at least to some degree. Just as it has proven time and again, when it comes to the Middle East, the U.S. just doesn’t get it.
Last week the Financial Times published an Op-Ed by female Somali freedom fighter Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who now lives in the U.S. Ali reminds the West, and Americans in particular, that those who warned a year ago that the so-called Arab Spring would not result in democracy and enlightenment but rather in the rise of political Islam, were in fact right. Just like there is no such thing as a good Taliban (the U.S. has been engaged in talks with the mullahs), there is no such thing as a good Hamas. Ali claims that Islamist forces in Arab nations will continue sweet-talking the West, deceiving it until they have an uncontested grip on the reins of government everywhere.
Does the soft rhetoric on Hamas stem from the overall delusional wishful thinking that has taken hold among some in Washington when it comes to the Muslim Brotherhood or Islamicism in general? This may very well be the case. There are already some in the U.S. capital who wholeheartedly believe the Arab Spring currently unfolding is a vindication of President Barack Obama’s policy and his 2009 Cairo Address. Consequently, they will not let facts get in the way of their self-congratulation.
There is still time to disperse the gathering clouds and prevent Washington from changing its position on Hamas. This can be accomplished by engaging the U.S. Congress or the Obama administration, both politically and diplomatically. We can assume that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address this issue when he arrives in Washington for talks soon.
With the U.S. election cycle in full swing, this might actually be an opportune time to float Israeli diplomatic initiatives in coordination with Washington. Even if they go nowhere due to Palestinian rejectionism, at least it will be clear who really killed the chances for peace.
They AREN’T ‘rights,’ Yamit.
As I said earlier, they may be goods — even necessities; but that does not (of itself) make them rights.
Not, for better or for worse, in the American ethos.
Essentially rights are understood negatively; i.e., they are understood to constitute protections from the power of the State, protections AGAINST the State.
The State — being a necessary evil — must be bound down in chains, as Jefferson had it, so as to permit persons to do whatever is possible & necessary to live their lives, maintain their liberties and “pursue happiness” free of govt encroachment.
In fact, that’s Obama’s quarrel with the Constitution: Where RIGHTS are concerned, it amounts to a “negative charter.”
The Constitution PROPER — as distinct from the first 10 Amendments, designated the Bill of Rights — is less about (anybody’s) rights than about the govt’s prerogatives, the govt’s powers.
It’s obvious from the wording that here the phrase, “the United States,” refers specifically to the GOVT of same, not the people represented by it.
It’s not discussing the “general welfare” of individuals any more than it’s presuming to “pay the Debt” on my mortgage or your car payments.
In the Preamble to the document, OTOH, which you also quote above, the subject is We the People:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare…”
Here, the key is not in the specified functions but rather in the VERBS ATTACHED in each case, because this gives an indication of HOW the govt is intended to RELATE to each such intention.
To PROVIDE for the Common Defense:
To “provide” means to materially & directly supply something.
To PROMOTE the General Welfare:
To “promote” is essentially to advocate, RATHER than to supply.
— a “promoter” is, more than anything else, a cheerleader.
Don’t confuse “implied powers” w/ ‘implied rights.’
That’s how we ended up with an unstated but “implied right of privacy”
— which in turn upended the existing laws of fifty states,
and made the cold-blooded murder of the most innocent member of the human family
— ‘legal.’
No ‘visions’ for me, boychik.
And (for the record) I pull my pants on one leg at a time.
“Fascination” with myself?
Hardly. I talked about my (non)relationship with the Tube merely as a response to Bland’s comment: “See if your rotting brain can make sense of this…” (Re-read the sequence & you’ll see.)
Though, on reflection, it’s evident that YOU TOO could profit from a furlough from The Great Plastic Fantastic Lover.
Sit in front of the thing long enough and it sucks out the grey matter, gradually replaces it with sawdust.
Didn’t know you believed there was such a thing as a “real” one.
Dunno. You tell ME.
Did they?
You’re the one who watches the Tube.
I’m sure your mystical visions are more enjoyable for you then watching reality shows on the tube but your opinions of the tube are your own and it’s quite presumptuous on your part to project your quirky mystical fascination with yourself on any other… even if it’s just Bland.
I didn’t know that cave ‘dwellers’ (no pun intended) had radios to listen to? Seems to me a real mystic could tune in without the need for a device ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZAAPPPPPPP! Didn’t they have a show about you on the “Twilight Zone”?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I submit the principle of “General welfare” (not binding) in the preamble and not specifically granted or stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the “general welfare” thus: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .” .
my position relies on current norms of modern states and assumed and applied authority of congress using common sense to apply the concept of General Welfare in modern terms based on needs of the American people and the ability of the government to respond to those needs.
If Governments can ensure standards of safety of drugs, food, clean air, water and general ecology. Mandate minimum standards of safety in the workplace, on the highways, ban harmful substances, and a myriad of laws and regulations that provide for a better condition of life under the American system; then tell me how ensuring clean water and clean air is any different than providing minimal health care for all citizens? If the government has the power to tax for the common defense does it not have the same power ( some say responsibility) to tax for the general welfare?
It matters not to me whether the service is supplied by the States or the Federal Govt. I submit my argument is not with who provides the service either private or public just the principle and if you do not consider it a right then I submit clean air and water are not rights either. Providing for the common defense can mean appeasement and hiring mercenary armies and militias too. Any service specifically not granted by the constitution mandating the government should not be given or supplied by government? If that were the case you could close up the government and or reduce it to three or four functions.
Close up any hospital not totally run by private initiatives and money. Cancel all safety net social programs because they are not specifically mandated by the constitution.
I rest my position on: “Implied powers”, “in the United States, are those powers authorized by a legal document (from the Constitution) which, while not stated, seem to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States against the protests[1] of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers.[2] Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the “general welfare clause” and the “necessary and proper clause” gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law.
Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of government in the court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. This was used to justify the denial of the right of a state to tax a bank, the Second Bank of the United States, using the idea to argue the constitutionality of the United States Congress creating it in 1816.
In the case of the United States government, implied powers are the powers exercised by Congress which are not explicitly given by the constitution itself but necessary and proper to execute the powers which are.”
More aptly designated the Politics of Envy
— though I’m not too sure just how broadly & extensively that particular pathology is harbored w/in Middle America. The MSM would have you believe it’s endemic.
But then, the MSM likes to create ‘news’ MORE than it likes to report it, slime that they are.
Not unless he promptly (as in right-now-not-a-moment-to-lose) announces two things :
1. a cut in the corporate tax rate (from the present 35%) to 15 or 20%; that would free-up a truckload of frozen corporate capital (whose planners have been scared shitless about the uncertainty of the future business climate) for EXPANSION and [breathe deep] NEW HIRES — as well as provide an incentive to bring home (i.e., Stateside) a lot of presently out-sourced jobs
— and —
2. a policy of ordering that the world’s biggest purchaser of motor vehicles — the US federal govt — will henceforth purchase only vehicles equipped with a flex-fuel option: viz., gasoline [petrol] AND natural gas (of which the US possesses 100 yrs’ worth of reserves); that would have the oil cartel peeing-in-its-pants & falling-all-over-itself to cut the price of sweet crude virtually OVERNIGHT, w/ gas-at-the-pump showing — within days — at two-bucks-per-gallon.
If he makes those two announcements, he wins in November — hands down.
But I’m not at-all persuaded that he’s got the cojones to stand up to his base to make those announcements
— and that’s what it would entail (and they’d make his life miserable for ‘betraying’ them).
In the American ethos, true rights do not come from the benevolence of government
— but ONLY from the hand of God.
GOVT’s function is to guarantee & protect those rights — not to ‘provide’ them.
Medical care — erroneously (and presumptuously) labeled “health” care — may be a good thing, even a necessity
— but not all good things are rights merely because they are recognized as good and/or necessary.
Medical care is not a ‘right’
— any more than food (an acknowledged good) and shelter (another such) are ‘rights.’
As a concept he [and his “plan” are] fullovit.
And if he can force everybody to buy something against their will
— then, in the end, he (or any future occupier of the Oval Office) can force ANYBODY to buy ANYTHING against their will.
The implications in Law for this principle — and its precedent-setting potential — are STAGGERING.
So?
Wealth creation is not a zero-sum game.
Sorry, but the Politics of ENVY is no improvement on the Politics of GREED.
Like Hamas vs. Fatah: it’s dogshit vs. catshit.
Of itself, the disparity in wealth — even if actual (let alone, if spurious) — is a false issue.
Yes, agreed.
“World’s greatest Ponzi Scheme”? — what’s that? — the US Social Security Act of 1935?
You can’t attribute it to one party or the other.
The Bill had joint sponsorhip: Levin is Demo, McCain is GOP.
It was bitterly opposed by conservatives, libertarians and even some liberals.
If the public perceives no significant difference, then the Demos WILL win.
There’s a WILD CARD in here though, and you’ve left it out of your prognostications
— the Tea Party.
We’ll see what’s to be seen, soon enough.
Obama and Hamas are already thisclose.
Once the Republican-nominee is chosen Obama’s numbers will rise even higher. What he is doing simply is throwing so much money into the system some of it is sticking. He has changed the method of reporting economic data to hide the rising inflation due to increasing money supply. Many in the middle-class have bought into the 1% concept that they were willing to ignore when their situation seemed to be secure but no longer.
Obama has chosen to attacjk the Republicans soft underbelly the perception that they are only or mostly for the top 20% of American electorate.
By election time he economic trends will favor Obama and blunt they key weapon the Republicans can use against him, at least for enough independents to give Obama a second term. Americans really like Obama and they don’t like any of the Republican menagerie.
Preaching fmily and conservative values resonates with a minority of Americans so much that in choosing women’s rights or religious freedoms, Obama went with the women, he can read polls too.
He can claim he ended Bush’s Iraq disaster, and has reduced our involvement in Afghanistan, extended benefits to the unemployed.
Health Care? Just copied Romney-care and succeeded in making health care a national right.
One can argue the myriad of details in the plan but as a concept he is correct. If America can afford the argument goes: decades of wasteful wars, trillions in bailouts to wealthy capitalist cronies on Wall St. and too big to fail Corporate losers,and billions in foreign aid; they can certainly make sure the best health care is afforded to every citizen. I’m not talking here about Obama-care but the concept of health care as a right.
There are only a small group of countries that have wealth disparity as great as America and since 2007 it’s increased by almost 20% (The rich getting richer…)
If the Main gist of the Republicans is austerity, then the Dems will say look at Greece and the PIGS. That’s what will happen. Greece has lost her sovereignty so that Bond holders the IMF and the Banksters can recoup their bad debts and cover worthless derivatives they hold. Greece should have defaulted left the EU and the Euro. Reconstituted the Drakma restructured at their own pace internally just like Iceland did and Ice is now above water and doing quite well. Today Germany owns Greece and Bismark and Hitler are rolling in their graves with joy as their dreams of German European hegemony is materializing without the need of military conquest.
In the end it won’t matter much who wins as the worlds greatest Ponzi Scheme will collapse soon after the 2012 elections.
American elites know what’s coming and are preparing the infrastructure to deal with popular civil unrest due to materialize. The Patriot act, enhanced power to law enforcement and Fema. and since Jan 1, 2012 the NDAA. Which give the President and the military dictatorial powers, with no recourse to law under at least 4 maybe 6 amendments to the Bill of rights. The Republicans sponsored and passed that law. 86 Senators voted for it.
The Republicans will lose mainly because there is little real difference between them and the Democrats and most of today’s problems are as much or not more a product of past administrations both parties. Obama may have made a bad situation worse but I don’t see McCain as a credible positive alternative. He was the Republican sponsor along with Sen Levin of the NDAA.
I don’t honestly think BHO has been IN the race, thus far.
Unlike all the GOP candidates, he hasn’t yet had to defend himself (let alone his record) or anything about his presidency.
That will change once a Republican nominee is chosen.
I don’t watch the tube.
Haven’t watched it for years.
I might listen to the radio from time to time.
It’s far less intrusive.
Doesn’t shackle me to a seat or any stationary spot.
(And the pictures are SO much better.)
Consequently my brain gets fresher & cleaner all the time.
Less CHANCE for it to rot.
Turn off the tube.
Highly recommended.
Win what? — the nomination?
No idea.
But then, I’m not sure I’d want him to.
Why’d you ask me about him?
I agree that you don’t inhabit the world of wishful thinking, Bland — but with all due respect, I don’t think you live in the real world either.
You’re too subject to depression.
One man’s opinion, of course.
Dweller,
You don’t honestly think Obama is losing the race, do you? See if your rotting brain can make sense of this:
Maybe you think Gingrich will win, eh? How about rooting for the Easter Bunny? I live in the real world, not the world of wishful thinking.
Shut off the tube, old boy, it’s rotting your brain.
With every passing day, it seems, Obama has been getting more popular with the American electorate. For a while, it looked as though the economy was the main motivator of US voters. More and more, though, it seems that a combination of amnesia, insanity and the latest lottery numbers are the key factors. Winning contestants on TV shows and major league sports scores may figure in as well. Whatever is motivating them, I don’t think foreign policy is even on the radar screen. Israel? Isn’t that someone involved in a recent sex scandal? Or is that an athlete on steroids, or a TV celebrity who just split up or went into rehab? It’s so hard to keep track of these things!
Hamas? Duh, what does THAT mean? Aren’t they the good guys? Israel keeps launching rockets against them, right?