12/1/14

Jewish (and Other) Rights in the Land Today

Let us begin today by looking briefly at the historical situation that immediately followed Israel’s Declaration of Independence and the subsequent War of Independence. At the end of the war, in 1949, armistice lines (ceasefire lines) were established. They were similar to, but not exactly the same, as the lines within which the Jews had declared a state in 1948: Israel had gained a bit of territory. Most significantly, Israel had secured the western part of Jerusalem. (In the original UN proposal, Jerusalem was to be internationalized.)

Credit: English-online

~~~~~~~~~~

These armistice lines – referred to as the Green Line – were the lines within which Israel remained until 1967. Egypt had taken Gaza, and Jordan had taken the remainder of Mandate Palestine – Judea and Samaria, dubbed “the West Bank” by Jordan. Jordan, I will note, occupied this land illegally, for it was acquired in a war of aggression.

This Green Line, my friends, is the so-called border behind which Mahmoud Abbas of the PA is always insisting Israel must retreat. He speaks of it as if it had been Israel’s official “border,” and much of the world has adopted this skewed perspective. But it was NOT a border, it was a temporary armistice line. Israel had an armistice agreement with Jordan; it specified that the armistice line was temporary and that a final border would be negotiated (something that never happened).

And note this well: not only was that line not Israel’s border, it was Jordan that Israel was going to negotiate with regarding a final border. There was no mention of Palestinian Arabs; there was no suggestion that a Palestinian state would be on the other side of the border.

~~~~~~~~~~

The situation changed in 1967 during the Six Day War, which Israel fought defensively, in the process acquiring Judea and Samaria. What Israel acquired then was Mandate land. Unclaimed Mandate land, to be sure, but according to international law still Mandate land.

There are claims – oi, are there claims! – that Israel is an “occupier” in Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank), that Israel is there illegally, that Israel has no right to build there.

But how can Israel be an “occupier”? This is land that the Mandate – which has never been superseded – had determined was a Homeland for the Jews. A people cannot be an “occupier” in its own land. How can it be “illegal” for Israel to build in this land, when the Mandate called for “close settlement” by the Jews?

I would add here that the fact that the land was acquired in a defensive war gives an added layer of legitimacy to Israel’s acquisition of it.

~~~~~~~~~~

And there is one other point of enormous significance here: Judea and Samaria – the western part of Mandate Palestine promised to the Jews – was stateless when Israel acquired it. No legal sovereignty had been applied to it. That is, Jordan’s presence in the land was illegal. Israel did not usurp the land from another state that had it legally.

According to international law, “occupation” can only take place when one state has taken control of land over which another state already had sovereignty. And remember what I wrote yesterday: There has NEVER been a sovereign Arab state (never mind a “Palestinian Arab” state) in Palestine.

Israel did not “take” the land from any state and thus cannot be an “occupier,” no matter what claims are made to the contrary. Of course, the myth that is promulgated is that Israel “took” the land away from the Palestinian Arabs.

~~~~~~~~~~

Following the Six Day War, Israel did not annex Judea and Samaria – something that many, myself included, deeply regret. It would have precluded a host of problems, had Israel claimed her full rights to the land once she had control of it. The thinking at that time was that there might be a trade of that land, or some part of it, for peace – a prospect that turned out to be greatly unrealistic.

And so Judea and Samaria remained unclaimed Mandate land, to which Israel had inarguably, the very best claim. Certainly the fact that Israel did not annex the land did not deny her the right to build there.

~~~~~~~~~~

I will mention here only very briefly the Oslo Accords – which many, again including myself – have viewed as a huge mistake. Today the Accords float somewhere in legal limbo, not having been formally renounced by Israel, but – breached repeatedly by the PA – not viable by any meaningful standard.

Two points should be made here with regard to Oslo.

1) The first is that the land of Judea and Samaria was divided by the Accord into three sections. Section C is land over which Israel has both civil and military control. And in this Area, the Accords do not restrict Israel’s right to build. (Israel voluntarily restricted her own right to build in Areas A and B, and this would change were Oslo renounced.) ALL Jewish communities (aka “settlements”) in Judea and Samaria are in Area C.

2) It should also be noted that there is nothing in the Accords about a sovereign Palestinian state. This is an idea that morphed over time. Even Yitzhak Rabin, who was prime minister at the time of the Accords, made it very clear that he envisioned the “final status” (which is what the Accord refers to) as something in the nature of an autonomy that is less than a full state.

~~~~~~~~~~

There will be many reasons to refer back to this history over the coming days and weeks. Now I’d like to take a look at some current happenings, considered in the light of this history:

Prime Minister Netanyahu is pushing hard for passage of Basic Law legislation that will declare unambiguously that Israel is a Jewish state. And the furor that is on-going with regard to this is incredible. He is accused of being “undemocratic,” which is patently nonsense.

The Elder of Ziyon blogspot has put up the full draft version of this legislation. This is the draft Netanyahu prefers, although it may change. It says that its goal is:

“Defining the State of Israel as the national state of the Jewish People, and anchoring the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state in the spirit of the principles of the Declaration of Independence.”

It declares that:

“The State of Israel is democratic, based on the foundations of freedom, justice and peace in light of the visions of the prophets of Israel, and upholds the individual rights of all its citizens according to law.”

And that:

“The State will act to enable all residents of Israel, regardless of religion, race or nationality, to preserve their culture, heritage, language and identity.”

And that:

“…members of recognized faiths shall be entitled to rest on their Sabbaths and holidays.”

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.il/2014/11/full-text-of-jewish-state-draft-law.html#.VHt3ZWdxnIV

So what do Netanyahu’s critic’s object to? It says that Israel is the national home of the Jewish People, in which the Jewish People realizes it right to self-determination. It identifies Hatikva as the national anthem, says the flag has a Star of David on it, recognizes all Jews as having the right to immigrate.

And this, say the complainers, makes non-Jews “second class citizens.”

But wait! The Mandate described Palestine as the Homeland of the Jews, and acknowledged national rights of self-determination only for the Jewish people, with non-Jews having equal protection with regard to individual civil and religious rights only. This is not new.

And if we look at the Resolution 181 of the General Assembly that recommended a partition of Palestine: one state was to be a Jewish state. Have they not noticed this?

~~~~~~~~~~

What’s going on now is political, an attempt by Netanyahu’s critics inside of Israel to play to the Arabs and the greater world: “See? See how liberal and fair I am! See how I protect the Arab minority in Israel. See, you can trust me to get along with you.”

Of course, there is the chorus of criticism from outside of Israel by members of the EU and others. But, while we don’t expect much from the EU, we have a right to expect better from Israeli politicians.

~~~~~~~~~~

There are those who ponder why Netanyahu is making quite the fuss over this that he is. He is furious with both Tzipi Livni (head of Hatenua) and Yair Lapid (head of Yesh Atid), who are members of the coalition but have publicly crossed the prime minister on this issue. He says he cannot govern with members of the coalition defying coalition discipline and behaving as if they are in the opposition.

Thus there has been serious talk about his dissolving the Knesset and bringing early elections (perhaps by March). He has been courting the Ultra Orthodox parties vigorously, for he would hope to bring them into a new coalition in place of Yesh Atid and Hatenua.

Last week I would have put my money on early elections. Today I’m not so sure. Netanyahu is delaying calling for a vote on the legislation and is seeking wording that would be agreeable to all.

~~~~~~~~~~

His reason for persisting on this? There are suggestions that what he is doing is political: That he sees the public support for his party, Likud, slipping in the polls, while Naftali Bennett’s party, Habayit Hayehudi, is garnering greater support. And that he is therefore making an all out effort to take a stand sure to be pleasing to the right wing that is favoring Bennett. What is more, goes this thinking, he is provoking a coalition crisis that will lead to new elections, because he thinks he’ll do better in elections now than he would some months from now.

I know full well that Binyamin Netanyahu is a political animal, and there may be some modest truth in what is being said. I, however, read a great deal more into this. I believe he knows what international efforts are afoot to delegitimize Israel and so believes that it is essential to codify our nature as a state unambiguously and up front.

~~~~~~~~~~

Please, see what Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar Ilan University and president of NGO Monitor, has to say about this situation (emphasis added):

“In the debate on the proposed ‘Jewish state law,’ much of the criticism erases the context that brought this issue to the political center at this time. Claims of ‘racism’ and ‘discrimination’ that have echoed through the media and in the Knesset reduce an important and complex issue to simplistic and misleading slogans…

”This initiative cannot be understood without considering the ongoing campaigns to erode and eventually erase the essential Jewish framework of Zionism. For a number of years, anti-Zionist political groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have sought to reverse the definition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, and replace it by a state ‘of all of its citizens.’

“…claims that a Jewish state is somehow racist or a theocracy ignore the fact that the 28 members of the European Union (plus Norway and Switzerland) are Christian societies, with symbols, flags, calendars, and, as in Britain, an established Church. Similarly, there are over 55 countries that define themselves as Islamic, and a number are, in fact, theocracies. Thus, the attempts to single out Israel for criticism are themselves highly discriminatory.

“For all of these reasons, the political agenda reflects the importance of reinforcing Israel’s fundamental Jewish and Zionist identity, based on the 1948 Declaration of Independence, which defines Israel clearly and repeatedly as ‘the Jewish state.’ And while different formulae exist in order to reach this objective, opponents who resort to false slogans such as ‘racism’ are contributing to the problem.”
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-jewish-state-law-as-a-response-to-demonization/

~~~~~~~~~~

Two days ago, in an emergency session of the Arab League in Cairo, Abbas declared:

”We will never recognize the Jewishness of the state of Israel.” He accused Israel of setting up an apartheid state.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-palestinians-will-never-recognize-israel-as-jewish-state/

So there you have it. It is in response to this sort of thinking that Netanyahu seems determined to take his stand.

~~~~~~~~~~

I would like to close with good news – evidence of the democratic spirit with which Israel relates to its non-Jewish citizens:

On Thursday, MK Danny Danon (Likud) announced that he was going to attempt to secure an addendum to the “Jewish state” bill calling for affirmative action for minority communities that take active part in defending the state. That would be the Druse and Circassian communities, which take part in mandatory military service.

Now the prime minister has announced he will be submitting a plan to the government for “significant investment” in the Druse and Circassian communities – in the areas of education, employment and infrastructure.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-promises-major-investment-in-druze-circassian-towns/

~~~~~~~~~~

The parents and the widow of Zidan Saif, the Druse police officer who died protecting Jews in the Har Nof massacre, visited the Har Nof synagogue and met with members of the congregation in an emotional meeting.

Credit: Dudi Vaaknin

Said Rinael Saif, Zidan’s widow, to the widows of the four rabbis who had been slain, “There is no way to make this easier, no words that can offer comfort, I feel your sorrow.” The families held a joint prayer service.

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=21793

~~~~~~~~~~

“Lost in the uproar over the proposed Israeli Nationality Bill has been the historic recognition of Arameans as a separate nationality in Israel. Israel is the first country in the world to recognize the Arameans. And this historic recognition has empowered and emboldened Arameans to seek better treatment in other countries they live in.

“On Wednesday, November 26, the World Council of Arameans (WCA) will be addressing the Seventh Session of the Forum on Minority Issues at the United Nations in Geneva. Shadi Halul, an Aramean from Gush Halav in the Galilee, will be traveling to Geneva in order to address the assembly. His two year old child was the first person to be registered under the new identity in Israel, one month ago…

“Part of his statement will read as follows: ‘We, Aramean Christian Israelis, want all the nations of the world to see the historic democratic move of Israel in recognizing the nationality of “Aramean” within the Christian citizens of the Jewish and democratic Israel…’

“’The only safe haven for our people in the entire region is Israel,’ Jahn Zaknoun, spokesperson of the Christian Aramaic Society in Israel told Tazpit News Agency. ‘It is the only place we are demographically growing in the entire region. In 1948 there were between 50,000 and 70,000 Arameans in the countryl, and today there are 130,000 Arameans.’

“”We want our people to be a useful and productive part of the country, to serve in the army, as anyone who loves this country as it is would do,’ Zaknoun added. ‘Israel is the only country in the region where everyone who comes here is integrated into society. Anyone who cherishes freedom, of life and of speech, loves Israel.’”

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/11/27/israel-first-country-to-recognize-aramean-nationality/

What a source of pride for all Israelis! Share this, share this, share this.

The Aramean Christians are one of the most ancient Christian churches, originating in Iraq, Syria and Turkey. They are brutally persecuted today outside of Israel.

~~~~~~~~~~

I end today with a video of the Circassian community in Israel, a Muslim community that is “proud to be Israeli.” This community cannot return to its native Caucasus and is grateful to the Israeli government for its assistance to Muslim leaders in the land. In Arab lands they cannot raise the Circassian flag – in Israel they can.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152581281228717&set=vb.19793423716&type=2&theater

(Thanks to Danny Seaman.)

Share this, as well, please!

12/1/14

Jonathan Gruber talks Single Payer

12/1/14

Improper IRS Disclousures Agency Accused Of Sharing 2,500 Taxpayer Docs DC Scandals

12/1/14

Department Of Defense Drops The Term ‘Enemy Combatant’

12/1/14

Democrat Mayor Encourages Voter Fraud at Landrieu Event

Hat Tip: BB

12/1/14

White Reds Exploiting Blacks in Ferguson

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

If Ferguson 2014 is remembered on an objective basis by our media, we will be reminded of an unprovoked attack on a white policeman by a black thug named Michael Brown, who was high on drugs; Michael Brown’s stepfather Louis Head (a convicted marijuana distributor) yelling, “Burn the bitch down;” the burning and looting of local businesses, including black-owned businesses; and the indictment of two blacks for plotting to kill St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch and Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson.

Another important factor in all of this has been the constant presence of outside agitators, including members of the white communist-led Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) and the Workers World Party.

Like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, RCP chairman Bob Avakian is a white communist who came out of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the group that laid siege to college campuses before turning into the terrorist Weather Underground.

Referred to by his followers as “Chairman Bob,” Avakian is devoted to “the struggle for a communist world” and wrote a memoir, From Ike to Mao and Beyond: My Journey from Mainstream America to Revolutionary Communist.

One of his big fans is Princeton University’s Cornel West, a favorite of the media who declared, “Bob Avakian is a long distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism. His voice and witness are indispensable in our efforts to enhance the wretched of the earth.”

West is honorary chair of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Rather than expose the outside agitators in Ferguson, The Washington Post ran an article by a black professor named Carol Anderson as the burned out businesses were still smoldering, insisting that, “Ferguson isn’t about black rage against cops—it’s white rage against progress.”

In a rambling and largely incoherent column, she insisted that “the tea party movement’s assault on so-called Big Government” was actually “an attack on African American jobs.”

If the public gets misled by such reckless and inflammatory coverage, we will be denied an opportunity to understand how our own internal security is at risk through outside manipulation of black criminal elements in our cities and communities.

It is apparent that President Obama and his major liberal and “progressive” allies want to use the damage and destruction in Ferguson for “criminal justice reform” that targets the police as the villains, and seeks to release hardened criminals from jail on the ground that they are “victims” of capitalist society.

The late Larry Grathwohl, former FBI informant in the Weather Underground, understood from personal experience how white communists exploited blacks and other minority groups. Once discussing the significance of a 2009 book by Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn entitled, Race Course Against White Supremacy, Grathwohl said Ayers and Dohrn always regarded Barack Obama, whose political career they sponsored, as a tool—a puppet—to use against white America.

But there’s one slight problem: these communists, including Ayers and Dohrn, were white themselves.

During one of several “criticism sessions” when he was in the Weather Underground, Grathwohl said he asked “why we didn’t recruit or make any efforts to recruit African-Americans or Latinos. Weatherman doctrine held that minorities inside the United States were actually a colonized people and therefore could fight a war of liberation while we, as white Americans, were part of U.S. imperialism or at least profited from U.S. imperialism.”

He never got a direct answer, although the Weather Underground did work later with the Black Liberation Army, a group of black communists who murdered police.

Grathwohl understood the role that blacks were to play in the revolution when he was assigned to Detroit, Michigan, in order to bomb a police station. Shortly after his arrival there in late January of 1970, he was assigned to a cell with four other people, and during a meeting with Bill Ayers they were told “that our objective would be to place bombs at the Detroit Police Officers Association (DPOA Building) and at the 13th precinct.”

The DPOA building, Grathwohl discovered, was a converted single-family brownstone that had been built prior to World War II. Next to the DPOA building was a Red Barn restaurant, located in a predominantly black neighborhood, meaning that that most of the customers were black.

“After a week of information gathering we had another meeting with Bill Ayers and at this time I suggested to Bill that if we placed the bomb in the walkway between these two buildings, the DPOA building would suffer little if any damage while the Red Barn restaurant would most likely be destroyed. I also concluded that customers in that restaurant would die.”

He said Ayers told him, “Sometimes innocent people have to die in a revolution.” Grathwohl said, “I was shocked. I couldn’t believe that a person who had so eloquently spoken of the black liberation movement could be so callous when it was obvious that the resulting explosion would kill many of the people he claimed to be so concerned about.”

This is essentially what has happened in Ferguson, as white-led communist groups had to be fully aware that blacks would suffer the most, when using Michael Brown’s death as the main organizing tool.

Obama has played the part well, just as Ayers and Dohrn anticipated. In his remarks after the announcement of the grand jury decision in Ferguson, Obama vaguely referred to “the handful of people who may use the grand jury’s decision as an excuse for violence,” but never named who they were and why they were in Ferguson. Instead, he focused on alleged problems with law enforcement.

Obama certainly knows a lot about white communists exploiting blacks. But he won’t address the problem publicly or call for the federal government—or Congress—to investigate it. That might expose the network that backed him for president.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which once had a friendly working relationship with the Obama/Holder Justice Department, has also played its typical role, publishing a “Hate Watch” report quoting some fringe “white nationalist web forums” as making disparaging remarks about minority groups. The group said nothing about communist manipulation of the Ferguson protests, and urged people to read the article by Professor Anderson about “white rage” being the problem.

Not to be outdone, CNN invited the professor on the channel to claim that “white rage” can be found in common-sense policies or proposals such as “law and order,” and even “fiscal responsibility.” She explained, for example, that fiscal responsibility “sounds genteel” and “sounds responsible… But underneath it, the destruction to the black community is profound.”

The communist role in the protests has been acknowledged by the media in passing but never explored in any detail. The Washington Post on Saturday ran a story under the headline, “Ferguson retailers bruised by protests,” about the “Black Friday” agitators who tried to impede business at various department stores. The on-line version carried the headline, “After protests, a quiet Black Friday in Ferguson.”

It reported, “A handful of protesters, including members of the Revolutionary Communist Party, were told to leave the parking lot. They stood at the lot’s entrance with signs that said ‘No Shopping As Usual Black Lives Matter Friday.’”

A photo with the article (not with the on-line version) showed somebody screaming in a store and disrupting shopping with a sign that said, “Ferguson is Everywhere. Police brutality and murder must stop.” The bottom of the sign revealed the sponsor of the protests: “revcom.us.”

The website www.revcom.us represents the Revolutionary Communist Party.

But one can search in vain in the pages of the Post and other major newspapers for any discussion of who these communists were and what precise role they were playing in the violence and mayhem.

This is a perfect opportunity for the new Congress to investigate communist subversion and agitation. But that would require creation of new committees or subcommittees to examine the idea that the U.S. has an internal security problem that needs to be exposed and addressed.

As long as Obama and the media pretend the problem doesn’t exist, it’s unlikely Congress will act.

Instead, we are likely to see more cases of libertarians like Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) having meetings with the likes of racial agitator Al Sharpton, who has his own show on the MSNBC cable network.

In a statement, Sharpton, who once falsely accused a group of white men of raping a black woman named Tawana Brawley, said that he and Senator Paul talked about “criminal justice issues” and “mandatory sentencing” as part of “a very candid and courteous conversation.” He added, “We pledged to continue to have such conversations where conservatives and progressives can have dialogue and break the log jam in American discussion.”

What he’s talking about is letting black criminals out of prison or jail because they are supposedly victims of a racist system.

Former congressman Artur Davis, a Democrat-turned-Republican, told Jennifer Rubin of the Post that Sen. Paul shouldn’t be meeting with “leaders” of cable shows, but rather with black families “doing the best they can against tough odds,” and those who have buried children “who were killed not by cops but by other kids.”

12/1/14

Forum: How Was Your Thanksgiving? Which Of Your Thanksgiving Favorites Did You Serve This Year?

The Watcher’s Council

Every week on Monday morning, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum with short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture or daily living. This week’s question: Which Of Your Favorite Thanksgiving Recipes, Food And Drinks Did You Serve This Year?

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason: Thanksgiving has always been my favorite holiday. When my mom passed away in 2011, it felt like there was a giant shift in the cosmos. I took that giant step forward understanding the impact of now being the elder family member. I find it interesting how I have embraced this and have taken the lead in arranging for holiday family events, although I am not the oldest child. It is always difficult to get the entire family together. Most of us have jobs that require us to work on the day after Thanksgiving, so we might not celebrate on the actual day. What we usually do is take turns at whose house we celebrate, and each of us makes a dish so no one has to go crazy and we can all enjoy the day. I don’t remember my family having any special recipes except for a sweet potato casserole that mom made and I make that every year now. A few years ago I found a really easy recipe for roasting a turkey that everyone loves. If anyone is interested, it is called the Michigander turkey. Chicken bouillon, minced onions, parsley flakes and seasoned salt. That’s it! I hope everyone had a very Happy Thanksgiving!

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD: Gruss Gott, i served for 2 different families and didn’t get much other than a cold biscuit, a leg from KFC and then got drunk on Lemon Meringue Pie…

The Glittering Eye :
Every year I look forward to Thanksgiving as kids look forward to Christmas. It’s probably my favorite holiday of the year and I explained why in my Thanksgiving post for 2004, now ten years old.

I have been cooking Thanksgiving dinner for more years than most of you have been alive. I started when I was fifteen years old and I don’t think I’ve missed a year since then. Some years I’ve had as many as twenty guests; others as few as one. If you come to my house for Thanksgiving, you are my family. Make no mistake about that.

We have an inviolable custom which I described in my Thanksgiving post for this year:

We followed our usual custom. Before we began to eat, proceeding from youngest to oldest we each said what we were thankful for. I, of course, was most thankful for my dear wife but there were other things for which I’m thankful.

I’m thankful that my new job circumstances have renewed my confidence in my abilities. If you’ve never experience doubt in that, I don’t know that you can appreciate what a difference that has made for me.

I’m also thankful for Tally’s life. I learned so much from her! I miss her dearly but I’m very thankful for her life.

It should go without saying but I’m also thankful for all of you who stop by here to read and even, perhaps, to comment. This blog is an important part of my life and it would be impoverished without the little coterie of commenters here. Thank you.

I’ve collected most of my usual Thanksgiving recipes in this post. If you’ve never tried it, I urge you to try the Pumpkin Chiffon Pie. You won’t be sorry.

This year I posted a new recipe that I had tried this year for the first time: Folded Rolls. They’re probably the best dinner rolls I’ve ever made.

JoshuaPundit: Ah, Thanksgiving! My wife and I had a great deal to be thankful for this year, as indeed we always do.

Food? I’ve always been the turkey chef in our family. This particular year we brined our turkey overnight, seasoned it (I like to rub the spices directly into the bird) and then put it into the oven. Past turkeys have been lubricated with red wine in the cavity, but this one wasn’t.It came out great.

We had one of my faves, kasha ( whole grain roasted buckwheat) as a side dish. We also had homemade cranberry sauce, stuffing made with a mixture of egg bread, rye bread, celery,onions, homemade broth and a bit of Merlot for flavor, mushroom n’ Merlot turkey gravy, and a nice Zinfandel to go with.

Another thing I always look forward to is the leftovers. Turkey sandwiches are a huge favorite of mine,and in a few days, it’ll be time for turkey soup, seasoned with thyme, sage, a touch of coriander, a little pepper and a prayer for peace.

Gerard Vanderleun, American Digest:

Grateful for each hand we hold

Gathered round this table.
From far and near we travel home,
Blessed that we are able.

Grateful for this sheltered place
With light in every window,
Saying welcome, welcome, share this feast
Come in away from sorrow.

Father, mother, daughter, son,
Neighbor, friend and friendless;
All together everyone in the gift of loving-kindness.

Grateful for whats understood,
And all that is forgiven;
We try so hard to be good,
To lead a life worth living.

Father, mother, daughter, son,
Neighbor, friend, and friendless;
All together everyone, let grateful days be endless.

Grateful for each hand we hold
Gathered round this table.

Well, there you have it!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the week’s nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it... or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

12/1/14

10 major takeaways from the House Benghazi report that the media is completely ignoring

By: Benjamin Weingarten
The Blaze

To hear the media tell it in the wake of the release of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Final Benghazi Report, the Republican-led efforts to get to the bottom of the attack were an utter waste of time — there was no foul play that precipitated and no conspiracy that followed the attacks, and the investigation of Benghazi was simply a crazed right-wing political witch hunt.

When there is a unanimous conclusion among mainstream media sources on a subject — especially when it would have been impracticable given the speed of such reaction for the media to have actually consumed such a report and several hundred pages of supporting documents — it behooves others to question that narrative and dig through the documents themselves.

Having reviewed the report and documents appended to it, there are a number of damning takeaways associated with the HPSCI’s findings that the media have simply and plainly ignored in the days following the report’s release.

A word before we delve into each of these points: Given that journalism requires questioning the official line of those in power, it is interesting that members of the mainstream media would simply take at face value the material from the Committee given that:

a) It is controlled by Republicans of whom the media is generally distrustful, including its lame duck chairman who was a member of the intelligence community (IC) himself, and whose wife led a security contracting company that operated in Libya;

b) Congress may have been culpable at least tangentially with respect to any failures associated with Benghazi, and its tendency one suspects would be to cover such failures, giving HPSCI members reason to conclude there was no wrongdoing (never mind the chilling effect of the recently reported CIA’s efforts to spy on Congressional intelligence investigators to begin with); and

c) The press has been ever-critical and skeptical of the CIA and other members of the IC historically, yet uncritically accepts the veracity of findings that absolve the IC of any substantive failures, primarily beyond poorly written talking points.

What follows are the 10 major takeaways from the report that the media is ignoring:

1) The report primarily absolves the IC of failure and wrongdoing, not the State Department, Department of Defense or executive branch

2) There was no intelligence failure, if you consider finding no evidence of a potential attack a success

3) The failures of Benghazi in fact lay squarely at the feet of the State Department, according to the report

4) The report attempts to deny U.S. facilitation of weapons transfers from Libya to Syria via Benghazi, but leaves a significant amount of yet unquestioned wiggle room

5) The report continues to say that President Obama referred to Benghazi as a terrorist attack from the very beginning, on Sept. 12, 2012 in the Rose Garden

6) The government acknowledges that there was never an extraction strategy for our personnel on the ground in Benghazi in the event of an attack

7) Former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell edited the talking points parroted publicly by Susan Rice following the attack, in a politically correct fashion, apparently so as to not offend/incite Muslims

8) The HPSCI majority members assert that the Obama administration has treated the investigation of the attack as a criminal, not counterterrorism matter, to the detriment of efforts to track down Benghazi suspects

9) James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, in testimony, continued to partially attribute the attacks in Benghazi to a YouTube video, and argues that there is “linkage” to the event with the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo Egypt; HPSCI member Democrats also continue to attribute the attacks in part potentially to a YouTube video

10) The primary lesson the CIA learned from the Benghazi attack was…not to release unclassified talking points

Here are the explanations:

1) The report primarily absolves the IC of failure and wrongdoing, NOT the State Department, Department of Defense or executive branch

This is a massive disclaimer that has largely been overlooked. The HPSCI report certainly takes into account testimony and evidence from those in government agencies outside of the CIA, FBI and plethora of other groups that comprise the IC, as indicated for example in appended testimony from Patrick Kennedy, under secretary of state for management at the State Department, but it does not reflect an extensive investigation into the various public figures in the Benghazi attack from other agencies. In multiple instances, the report specifically notes that there are unanswered questions that the committee hopes will be addressed in separate investigations.

If you take all of the report’s findings at face value, then the best assessment one can make is that it largely defends the actions before, during and after the attack on Benghazi of U.S. intelligence, and intelligence alone. Which leads to the second major ignored finding.

2) There was no intelligence failure, if you consider finding no evidence of a potential attack a success; 3) the failures of Benghazi in fact lay squarely at the feet of the State Department, according to the report

The Benghazi report states that “there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks.”

It supports this assertion with the following statement:

The way this portion of the report reads, the CIA feels that because the IC did not obtain intelligence indicating the potential for an attack, and could not have collected intelligence to prevent the attacks, they are free from blame in what occurred.

On its face, this seems like somewhat of a flimsy argument given that the attacks occurred and certainly at the very least reflected a degree of serious sophistication given the highly accurate mortar shelling for example that took place at the CIA Annex in the second-wave attack that occurred in Benghazi.

The report argues throughout that the attacks were not pre-meditated or planned, and rather represented an “off-the-shelf” operation.

It further seeks to absolve the IC by noting the numerous warnings that the IC provided in the months prior to the Benghazi attack on the deteriorating security situation in the country:

This is awfully favorable towards the IC, and the report, as you will see in the following excerpt, seems to lay the blame almost squarely at the feet of the State Department:

The House majority adds in an appended statement:

Given the HPSCI’s clear favorable view of the IC, and conversely their criticism of the State Department, one would think that the media would highlight this aspect of the report. It also behooves them to question such a seemingly black-and-white conclusion.

4) The report attempts to deny U.S. facilitation of weapons transfers from Libya to Syria via Benghazi, but leaves a significant amount of yet unquestioned wiggle room

Note that nowhere in the report does the House Intelligence Committee define what “unauthorized activities” consist of.

The report continues:

Note that this finding specifically refers to the collection and facilitation of weapons shipments at the CIA Annex. Does this rule out that the CIA might not have facilitated arms sales “indirectly” through third-party “cut outs?” Would such activities qualify as “authorized activities?” Would such activities have to be disclosed publicly?

Consider what investigative journalist Seymour Hersh (himself no Tea Partier, in fact quite the opposite), wrote in a bombshell April 2014 article in the London Review of Books [emphasis ours]:

A highly classified annex to the report [a Senate Intelligence Committee report from January 2014], not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line [a back channel developed in this case to transfer weapons to Syria]. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)

Hersh continues [emphasis ours]:

The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official [one of Hersh’s primary sources] explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.

…‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

Ken Timmerman, author of “Dark Forces,” with whom we spoke earlier this year on Benghazi, agrees with Seymour Hersh’s assessment, telling us recently via e-mail: “In the Benghazi-to-Syria transfers, CIA most likely operated under existing Global War on Terrorism findings and more generally under cover of ‘liaison’ operations which are not considered U.S. Covert ops.”

In testimony from a HPSCI hearing on November 15, 2012, appended to the full report, former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell tells us:

In later testimony on May 22, 2013, in front of the HPSCI, Morell gives us some additional information on weapons transfers:

Again, questions remain.

Would a “rat line” to the degree to which there was one need to be disclosed? Were Americans supporting the activities of other nations carrying out weapons transfers to Syria, or truly solely collecting intelligence on such activities? How does the HPSCI and the officials it interviewed define “facilitation” of weapons transfers — and would indirect coordination/planning fall under such a definition?

These questions have not been asked nor answered.

5) The report continues to say that President Obama referred to Benghazi as a terrorist attack from the very beginning, on Sept. 12, 2012 in the Rose Garden

As discussed with Sharyl Attkisson in a recent interview, the Obama administration, with the help of a compliant media, sought to portray the president as classifying what occurred in Benghazi as a terrorist attack from the very beginning of the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2012. The president’s use of the phrase “acts of terror” on Sept. 12, 2012 in the Rose Garden was not made in context of Benghazi.

The report nonetheless backs the president’s narrative:

In an interview with Steve Kroft on Sept. 12, 2012 from the Rose Garden, critical portions of which CBS sat on while reporting on the Benghazi attack, Obama directly acknowledges that he did not refer to the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack that very day:

Kroft Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.

Obama Right.

It bears noting that even the Washington Post’s fact-checker believes the president misled the public regarding his statements following the attack, giving the president’s claim that he called Benghazi “an act of terrorism” “Four Pinocchios,” its worst rating in terms of truthfulness. The Post’s report states:

Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this [Benghazi] then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

…the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

6) The government acknowledges that there was never an exfiltration strategy for our personnel on the ground in Benghazi in the event of an attack

In a portion of the Benghazi report that has garnered zero media attention to date, it reads:

7) Former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell edited the talking points in a politically correct fashion, parroted publicly by Susan Rice following the attack, apparently so as to not offend/incite Muslims

The HPSCI additional views proffered by majority members of the panel reads:

The relevant portion of the majority additional views report reads, consistent with Obama administration policy as implemented by outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder:

Here is the relevant text from James Clapper’s testimony on November 15, 2012:

And here is the relevant text which echoes Clapper’s testimony from House Democrats on the HPSCI:

One wonders, is Mr. Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, still of the belief that we can attribute this attack to a YouTube video? Is it really reasonable to attribute an attack to “linkage” with events in Cairo?

10) The primary lesson the CIA learned from the Benghazi attack was…not to release unclassified talking points

Relevant testimony from former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell below: