World quick to criticize Israel

Hamas attacks Israel — and the world condemns Israel

Lawrence Haas

April 11, 2018, The Hill

Hamas attacks Israel — and the world condemns Israel
© Getty Images

The world “should wait for our great move,” said a top Hamas leader, speaking to Palestinian protestors during violent clashes with Israeli forces along the Gaza border, “when we breach the borders and pray at al Aqsa.”

With hundreds around him chanting, “We are going to Jerusalem, millions of martyrs,” and with 20,000 Palestinians protesting along the border — some burning tires, others throwing Molotov cocktails and rocks — Yahya Sinwar declared during April protests that Hamas was “following in the path of martyr Yasser Arafat in resisting the enemy” and “if we explode we will explode in [Israel’s] face.”

That Sinwar and other Hamas leaders made clear that their “March of Return” is only the latest tactic in their efforts to destroy Israel, however, hasn’t convinced much of the global community, the West, or the media to abandon its comfortable narrative – of a peace-loving Palestinian people in Gaza, driven to violence by an iron-fisted Israel.

Such is life as the world’s only Jewish state — with Hamas and other terrorist groups across its border in Gaza; with the more dangerous Hezbollah across its northern border in Lebanon; with terrorists roaming the Sinai; and with Hezbollah and Shi’a militias implanted amid the chaos of Syria.

However carefully it responds to violent efforts to breach its borders and attack its people, Israel finds itself falsely portrayed, second-guessed, and ultimately condemned. Thus, the current turmoil along Israel’s border with Gaza is playing out along predictable lines in the court of public opinion.

Hamas, which seeks Israel’s destruction and has run Gaza since ousting the Palestinian Authority in a violent coup in 2007, launched the “March of Return” on March 30 to remove the “transient border” between Israel and Gaza and fulfill the “right of return” of all seven million descendants of the Palestinians who fled their homes when Arab nations launched the 1948 war against the new Jewish state. (With such a full “right of return,” Palestinians would outnumber Jews in Israel, upending a state that emerged from the Holocaust and marked a people’s return to their historic homeland.)

The second such “march” came on Friday, April 6, and Hamas vows to mount one each Friday until “Nakba Day,” the annual day when Palestinians mark the “catastrophe” of Israel’s creation in May of 1948. For that day, the group promises a “march” that will include at least a million participants.

But these weekly “marches” aren’t marches at all. Like the rockets that Hamas launches into southern Israel or the tunnels it uses to infiltrate underground, these marches are violent efforts to breach Israel’s border — and they’ve left about 30 dead at the hands of Israeli forces that say all 30 were engaged in violent activity.

“Palestine and Jerusalem belong to us,” top Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh declared this week. In an Orwellian twist, he termed the “March of Return” a “peaceful, civilized, and popular march.”

But Hamas is not only orchestrating the violence on Israel’s border; it’s incentivizing it. The group is paying $3,000 for the family of a “martyr” who dies in a confrontation with Israeli forces, $500 to protestors who are seriously wounded, and $200 to those who are moderately wounded. It’s also reportedly jailing bus drivers who refuse to take Gazans to the border to protest.

With Hamas laying bare its strategy, much of the world has nevertheless found it easier to blame Israel for the chaos.

The International Criminal Court’s prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, warned both Israel and Hamas that each could be committing crimes — as if a terror group using violence to breach a border and a nation defending itself are equivalent.

The European Union’s High Representative Federica Mogherini called for an investigation of Israel’s use of “live ammunition,” said its force should be “proportionate,” and urged a “full opening of the crossing points.”

Maybe Israel’s critics don’t realize that with their one-sided condemnations, they’re emboldening Hamas. Or maybe they do.

Lawrence J. Haas is a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. He served as a former senior White House official and as senior communications director for Vice President Al Gore

Posted in Judaism, Middle East Report, Opinion, Recent Posts | Comments Off on World quick to criticize Israel

Palestinians want to live in Israel

Actually, Palestinians Are Doing Pretty Well Under Israeli Rule

 Jonah Cohen, March 20, 2018

Correction, 3/20/18: The piece originally stated that at the end of the Six-Day War in 1967, “Israel took over the Palestinian territories.” During the Six-Day War, the territories in question belonged to Jordan, not “Palestine.” The piece has been updated accordingly.

* * *
Of the various complaints made against Israelis, the worst has been the charge that the country is committing genocide. To wit: Nobel laureate José Saramago not long ago claimed that “what is happening in Palestine is a crime we can put on the same plane as what happened at Auschwitz.” While not every critic of Israel takes this line, enough influential academics and journalists have made similar claims, so that world opinion now judges Israel to be scarcely better than North Korea.

But “genocide” isn’t merely a matter of opinion; it’s measurable. Massive empirical data about life in Israel and the Palestinian territories has been compiled by distinguished Israeli journalist Ben-Dror Yemini and his recently translated 2014 book Industry of Lies shows just how ludicrous the genocide charge is.

Begin with life expectancy. At the end of the Six-Day War in 1967, when Israel took over the territories from Jordan, the average Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza expected to live just 49 years, according to a U.N. report. In 1975, Palestinian life expectancy rose to 56; by 1984, it climbed to 66. Yemini notes that this is “a rise of almost seventeen years in longevity within seventeen years of Israeli rule.” Since 1984, Palestinians have lived an average of 75 years. That’s not only higher than the global average, but longer than the life expectancy in many Arab and South American countries—and even in some European countries. Israeli Arabs, meanwhile, have the highest life expectancy in the Muslim world.

Infant mortality is another marker of genocide and happily it’s been declining in Palestinian life, having shown dramatic improvement since 1967. Also a happy statistic: the high birth and low death rates of Palestinians in Gaza put the territory near the top of the world in population growth. It is a strange kind of “genocide” that creates the conditions for a population of people to flourish.

But it isn’t just the Palestinian people who have flourished. Infrastructure has also meaningfully improved—most notably, Palestinian access to clean drinking water. Under Jordanian occupation, only 4 out of 708 Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank had modern water supply systems and running water.

Five years after Israel took over, the network of fresh water sources grew by 50 percent and continued to expand: By 2004, 641 Palestinian communities—accounting for 96 percent of the population—had running water, even in seasons of low rainfall. True, Hamas’s reckless sewage management and over-pumping from Gaza’s aquifer are aggravating regional challenges; but pioneering Israeli conservation tactics and technologies (such as drip irrigation and desalination plants) offer hope for the whole area. “One of the driest countries on Earth now makes more freshwater than it needs,” cheered Scientific American.

With improvements in physical well-being have come advances in culture. Palestinian literacy is impressive indeed: an astonishing 91 percent adult literacy rate. That makes the Palestinians the most educated population in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, according to a 2006 World Bank report.

Israeli Arabs are also doing quite well academically, especially Arab Christians—who outperform Jews in matriculation certificates. “Christian Arabs do better than the Israeli Jewish population at large,” Yemini writes. “If the charge of significant [anti-Arab] discrimination were true, it is hard to imagine such an outcome.”

And if voting with their feet is any indication, a majority of Israeli Arabs prefer to live in Israel rather than other countries, as suggested in various polls. Many even favor Israeli-ruled East Jerusalem over Palestinian citizenship in the territories.

But what about all the bloodshed? Isn’t the Israeli-Palestinian conflict among the worst the world has ever seen? You wouldn’t use a word like “genocide” if it wasn’t, would you? As Yemini underscores: This is a big “no.” Over the last 70 years, 5 million lives have been lost in wars across the Middle East and North Africa; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict accounts for less than one percent of the death toll.

And even the larger Arab-Israeli conflict is way down the list of the world’s most lethal wars. Consider one comparison: In the Algerian War, France killed more Muslims in eight years than all the people killed in the entire 100 years of the Arab-Israeli conflict. About ten times more. And during those eight years, the French killed far more Algerians—nearly 30 times more—than Israelis killed Palestinians since 1948. “Relative to population size,” Yemini says, “more Palestinians have died in traffic accidents than in violent clashes with Israel.”

Given the extensive media coverage of this minor conflict, you would think academics and journalists might provide the public with more of these relevant comparisons. But comparative analysis is rarely how they explore the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Like advertisers selling a product, they single out and sensationalize. Professors such as Harvard’s Stephen Walt and University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer admitted as much in their scorched-earth attack on the Jewish state: “Our focus will be primarily on Israeli behavior,” the professors confessed in The Israel Lobby, “and no attempt will be made to compare it with the actions of other states in the region or in other parts of the world.”

Virtually anything can be made to look ugly when you isolate it and put it under a microscope: People are people and they often behave in ugly ways. This fact is part of the human condition, and not unique to Israelis or Palestinians or anyone else. And if what you’re looking to confirm is your own biases, there will always be anecdata you can find to support your case.

Israelis and Palestinians certainly have imperfections. Their shared home isn’t yet the land of milk and honey, but nor is it the hellhole often depicted by intellectuals and the media. To understand this truth, all you have to do is look at the objective data.

Next time a commentator starts to catastrophize about Israel, cheer them up with truths of increasing Palestinian life expectancy, declining infant mortality, growing populations, improved water conditions, amazing literacy, comparatively low casualty rates, and much of the other good news in Yemini’s level-headed book.

Jonah Cohen is the communications director for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA).

Posted in Education, Islam, Middle East Report, News Articles, Opinion, Recent Posts | Comments Off on Palestinians want to live in Israel

Netanyahu investigation is tainted

The “Faudalization” of Police Enforcement in Israel

By Ron Jager, February 26, 2018

The never ending legal saga with its daily thundering headlines against the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu has in recent days begin to resemble a scene out of Israel’s new hit series “Fauda”. The series is about an undercover elite Israeli unit that operates in the ‘West Bank’, is named for the Arabic word for chaos, often used by IDF soldiers to describe operational activities in the ‘West Bank’, and by Palestinian Arabs to depict their daily lives.

Fauda” focuses on undercover operations in the area hunting down members of Hamas, using all means at their disposal. There is, naturally, an absence of due process, personal civil rights and legal recourse because this is a fight against the terrorists who want to murder Israeli civilians.. The goal in this life-and-death case justifies the means, and the result is expected to be nothing less than the complete elimination of the target. The missions operate within a subtext of total immunity, and are judged by their success in carrying out their missions.

One cannot escape the connection between the style and scope this past year of the police investigations against an elected Prime Minister, his associates, and essentially anyone in close contact with Benjamin Netanyahu, and the mindset of the current police commissioner, a former 30 year veteran and deputy head of the Shabak, Israel’s version of the FBI, anti-terror forces, and internal homeland security all rolled up into one; a very powerful, and largely secret organization.

It seems as if the police forces have undergone a transformation, a kind of “Faudalization” within their organizational behavior code and have mobilized all means at their disposal to politically dispose of the elected Prime Minister of the State of Israel. It seems as if the current police investigation against the Prime Minister has been meticulous in coordinating and manipulating accusations and state witnesses to create an atmosphere magnified by the printed, broadcasted, and social media platforms which are desperately hungry for any information that can advance the liberal-left, progressive political agenda to replace Benjamin Netanyahu.

In the “Fauda” television series, which one must remember is not a documentary, operatives are portrayed as thorough in giving only lawful orders and refraining from obeying blatantly illegal orders, without diminishing neither the shoot-to-kill objectives nor the pressure to get kills. The plot allows the viewers to experience the personal perspective of real terrorists with blood on their hands, Palestinian terrorists who are wanted by the Israeli army for years, and the Israeli Shabak hunting them down. At the same time, there are scenes where undercover agents meet with terrorists in which they hug and kiss, they sit together to eat and drink, in a camaraderie that seems to transcend the inevitable tragedy that awaits them. Scenes of interrogations and imprisonment are typified by behavior impervious to judicial oversight.

    This week’s revelation of collusion by a judge and an Israel Securities Authority (ISA) public prosecutor in one of the corruption investigations, the so-called Case 4000, and the fact that both were not immediately arresting for blatant criminal behavior, is an eye opener and not only because of the the two people involved. The shocking fact is that the Police investigators did not immediately confiscate their cell phones and personal computers to examine whether the suspected collusion didn’t extend to other cases against the Prime Minister, including additional police investigators, judges, prosecutors who are all at the forefront of the legal and investigative witch hunt against Benjamin Netanyahu.

These unelected civil servants, the judiciary, and the police force who were supposed to be Israel’s democratic gatekeepers, have in one giant exposure done more damage to the public’s trust than any of the allegations against the Prime Minister. They seem to be operating within a subtext of total immunity, and are judged by their success in carrying out their mission to force Benjamin Netanyahu out of office.

The correspondence exposed by Channel 10, in which Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court Judge Ronit Poznansky-Katz and Eran Shacham-Shavit, the deputy council of the ISA’s investigative department, discussed and coordinated remand periods for some of the suspects in text messages prior to the hearings, will likely damage the current police investigation into Case 4000 and even throw off balance other corruption probes against Netanyahu.

“It is shocking to see the cover-up attempts by the heads of the justice system,” wrote Tourism Minister Yariv Levin (Likud) in a Facebook post, noting that “if it turns out that civilians were sent to detention in a tainted procedure, in which the decision was made even before a hearing, it is a criminal offense of the harshest degree.”

As events unfold at a mesmerizing pace, one cannot easily dismiss the demand that the lengthy investigations into alleged corruption against Benjamin Netanyahu be dismissed since the judicial process has been undeniably tainted. A legal foundation in all Democratic judicial processes deals with the concept of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” This is a legal metaphor used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the “tree”) of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the “fruit”) from it is tainted as well.

Evidence that has been admitted in court yet obtained by illegal police or judiciary representatives is not admissible.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has defended himself against allegations by pointing his finger at the apparent collusion between the media, judiciary, and investigative police officers. He has accused them of masterminding a deep-state conspiracy against him. He has labeled negative reporting of him as “fake news” and said that the media is engaged in “an obsessive witch hunt against me and my family with the goal of achieving a coup against the government.”

The prime minister has cast aspersions on the integrity of Commissioner Roni Alsheich. He said police were doing all they could to bring him down, accusing the force of “slander and lies.” This newest expose is bearing him out. And we have barely touched on the judiciary in this article.

The “Faudalization” of Israel’s police and judicial systems is transpiring before our very eyes, stay tuned for the next episode.

 

The writer, a 25-year veteran of the I.D.F., served as a field mental health officer. Prior to retiring in 2005, served as the Commander of the Central Psychiatric Military Clinic for Reserve Soldiers at Tel-Hashomer. Since retiring from active duty, he provides consultancy services to NGO’s implementing Psycho trauma and Psycho education programs to communities in the North and South of Israel. Ron is a former strategic advisor at the Office of the Chief Foreign Envoy of Judea and Samaria To contact: medconf@netvision.net.il or visit: www.ronjager.com


Posted in Middle East Report, Opinion, Recent Posts | Comments Off on Netanyahu investigation is tainted

PA security coperates with Israel

The Hush-Hush Deal That Keeps the Middle East From Exploding

 

02.12.18

 

Posted in Islam, Judaism, Middle East Report, Opinion, Recent Posts | Comments Off on PA security coperates with Israel

Trump’s Middle East

nationalreview.com

Donald Trump’s Middle East Policy Breaks Status Quo. Good.


President Donald Trump has promised that in the Middle East under his presidency, “there are many things that can happen now that would never have happened before.” Two speeches of the last ten days offer dramatic confirmation of the emerging reconfiguration of America’s relationship with Israel and the Middle East under his leadership.

In a two-hour speech before the Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) last week, Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, denounced the British, Dutch, French, and Americans for having conspired, ever since the 1650s, to create a Jewish colonial outpost that would “erase the Palestinians from Palestine.” As Abbas tells it, all this reached a climax on the eve of World War I, when the West realized that it was on the verge of collapse and that the Islamic world was “poised to inherit European civilization.” To put an end to this threat, the Western nations went about carving up the Muslim world so that it would be forever “divided, backward, and engulfed in infighting.” As for the United States, it has been “playing games” of this sort ever since then, importing, for example, the disastrous Arab Spring into Middle East.

Abbas summed up by demanding an apology and reparations from Britain for the Balfour Declaration and denying that the United States can serve as a mediator in the Mideast. Finally, he went to the trouble of cursing both President Trump and the U.S. Congress: Yehrab beitak (“May your house be razed”), he said.

I have been following the speeches of the PLO and its supporters in the Arab world for 30 years. Nothing here is new. These are the same things that Yasser Arafat, Abbas, and the mainline PLO  leadership have always believed. It is a worldview that reflects an abiding hatred for the West, blaming Christians and Jews not only for the founding of Israel but for every calamity that has befallen the Muslim and Arab world for centuries.

What should be one’s policy toward an organization committed to such an ideology? One option is to sympathize with the shame and outrage to which the PLO gives voice, and to try to mitigate it with grants of territory, authority, prestige, and large-scale ongoing funding. American administrations have pursued this option, seeking to make a peace partner out of the PLO, since President Ronald Reagan announced a dialogue with it in December 1988. Israel, too, has pursued this option, since 1993.

President Trump’s 8 Biggest Accomplishments

But in the ensuing 30 years of talk, the only major agreements signed have been those the PLO leadership could find a way to fit into its narrative: Agreements such as the 1993 Oslo Accords, which could be portrayed as inflicting a bitter defeat on Israel and the West — and as a step on the road to ultimate triumph.

President Trump, Vice President Pence, and United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley are pioneering an alternative policy, which can be summed up in Haley’s words: “We’re not going to pay to be abused.” If players like the PLO, North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran (hopefully, Turkey gets added to this list soon) want to cultivate a civilizational hatred of America, double-talking while they give aid to global terrorism and conjure diplomatic scandals at the U.N. — well, then they don’t get to be allies. They don’t get funded. They don’t get grants of land, authority, and prestige. Those things will be reserved for actual allies.

In a speech before the PLO last week, Mahmoud Abbas expressed the familiar worldview marked by hatred for the West, blaming Christians and Jews for every calamity that has befallen the Muslim and Arab world for centuries.


What this looks like was already on display when Trump became the first serving U.S. president to visit the kotel (the Western Wall) in Jerusalem in May, shredding the longstanding diplomatic taboo against making it look as though the holiest site in Judaism is in fact part of the State of Israel. Since then, Trump and Haley have taken on UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which regularly disseminate the PLO’s view of history and current affairs. The Trump administration has cut in half America’s massive financial support of UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East), an organization whose purpose is to maintain generations of unabsorbed descendants of Palestinian Arab refugees, inculcating them in Abbas-style grievances against Israel and the West.

Mike Pence’s address on Monday to Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, continued this trajectory. But he also responded to Abbas’s history lesson with some tasteful but potent narrative-weaving of his own. In addition to the traditional script pointing to the shared interests of the United States and Israel as democracies, Pence emphasized that it was significant to him as an American that “our founders turned to the Hebrew Bible for direction” in establishing their country and that Israel’s story “inspired my forebears to create . . . a new birth of freedom.” He returned repeatedly to the way in which the story of the Jewish people holding fast to God’s promise to return them to their land “shows the power of faith.” Pence even said the traditional Jewish shehehianu blessing (in Hebrew!), thanking God for bringing us to see this day in which the Jewish people have been restored to their land.

On policy, Pence said that Trump “righted a 70-year wrong” in recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and that the U.S. embassy would be in the city “by the end of next year.” He promised Israel that “the United states will never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.” As for the PLO, Pence gave eloquent and persuasive voice to his country’s desire for peace. But his bottom line also marked a significant shift from previous American administrations: The U.S., Pence said, would support a PLO state “if both sides agree.” In other words,  whether there will be such a state is Israel’s call to make. Which puts American policy light years away from the heyday of George W. Bush’s “road map,” and his breathy “vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace.”

For a change, there was no daylight between the views Pence outlined in the Knesset and those of his Israeli hosts. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem would go down in Jewish history together with the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and Truman’s recognition of Israel in 1948. Isaac Herzog (Labor), the leader of the opposition,  pointed out that it is “the love of the Bible that connects us to one another.” Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein (Likud) spoke of the Jewish state “fulfilling the words of the prophets” and of “the United States, more than any other country in the world, as Israel’s faithful partner” in this effort.

As for the curses that Abbas called down on President Trump’s house, the Israelis responded by blessing him: Netanyahu told Pence it is “our deepest hope that President Trump and you will succeed in strengthening the United States, . . . so that America will continue to be the greatest power in the world for generations to come.” And Edelstein said that from Israel he would only hear the blessing Bneh Beitcha (“May your house be built up”).

There is no shortage of commentators saying that this embrace of Israel is only going to harm the prospects for peace in the Middle East. That view reflects the consensus in Washington before President Trump got there. For long decades, Washington has crafted policies based on the tacit assumption that America needs the PLO if it is to bring peace to the Middle East. In its effort to “balance” the demands of this extremist organization against Israel’s concerns, American policy inflated the PLO’s importance, and it learned to tolerate and even embrace an organization whose views have always been profoundly anti-Western, not to mention anti-Semitic.

Meanwhile, the Biblical roots of America’s alliance with Israel have been consistently downplayed for fear that mentioning them would upset Arab sensibilities. Even so elementary a move as recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, or cutting funding to chronically anti-Western and anti-Semitic organizations, became unthinkable.

These policies did not bring peace to the Middle East. But they severed the ties between American diplomacy in the region and common sense — to the point that more than a few U.S. officials ended up believing that not only the PLO, but even Iran, whose parliament regularly curses the United States, could be made a peace partner if it were paid handsomely enough. The Trump administration, on the other hand, appears to have good grasp of a principle that is under-rated but nonetheless quite useful in making sound policy: In the relations between nations, it matters who blesses you and who curses you.

READ MORE:
Pakistani Islamism Flourishes in America
Facing the Iranian Challenge in the Middle East
Jerusalem and Middle Eastern Christians

— Yoram Hazony is president of the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem. His book The Virtue of Nationalism is available for pre-order online.

Posted in Middle East, Recent Posts | Comments Off on Trump’s Middle East

Is climate change man-made

americanthinker.com

Man-Made Climate Change-Settled Science or Dogma?

By Wayne McLaughlin

In 1990, we find the United Nations’ formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chartered to remedy carbon dioxide induced global warming without ever pausing to examine the plausibility of the theory.

A key feature of this plan is a carbon tax to be levied on developed economies with proceeds going to less developed countries (read members of the UN general assembly). The goal is to provide incentives to restrict fossil fuel development and invest (read sink money) in wind farms and solar panels with much higher costs per energy unit produced.

It also incentivizes participating governments to create grant funds for environmental lobby groups who make political contributions to the politicians responsible for creating those funds.

The ‘Science’

Combustion of fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal contributes to a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is defined as ‘greenhouse’ gas meaning that it traps heat in the atmosphere leading to an increase in ambient air temperature.

A temperature increase for the planet will cause melting polar ice caps with flooding of coastal areas, polar bear extinction, increased severe weather and drought.

Solutions include solar panels and wind farms, the so-called renewable energies.

The Real Science

Earth temperatures have been fluctuating, up and down, in response to sun activity forever. Polar ice cap fluctuations have been observed to coincide between Earth, Mars and other planets in our solar system. A striking example of the effect of sun activity is illustrated by the Maunder Minimum, a 200 year pause in sun activity which coincided with the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period.

In 1990, the IPCC said this is the likely historic temperature history of the planet for the last 1000 years:

A comparison with sunspot activity discloses the real driver behind temperature variations.

The Little Ice Age was deemed to have ended in 1849 and sunspot activity, until recently, has generally risen since then, accounting for gradually rising temperatures.

CO2 Myth

Graphical representation of a 2500 molecule air sample.

A 2500-molecule air sample will contain 1952 molecules of nitrogen, 524 molecules of oxygen, 23 molecules of argon and one molecule of carbon dioxide (in red).

This is the mathematical equivalent of 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide which MMCC advocates say approaches the level of irreversible change, killing polar bears and inundating our coastal areas. Since carbon dioxide has a specific heat only about twice the other air constituents, it is difficult to see how it could impart a measurable temperature increase to the other 2499 air molecules. That would be like powering the lights of a major sports stadium through a single household extension cord.

The pie-shaped red area in the figure above represents the 11 percent portion of the infrared wave length which can react with CO2.

Climate Deception

AGW fanatics have relied on four key deceptions to keep their story alive:

  • Ice core samples reveal higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 during warm periods in the planet’s history.
  • Hockey Stick Curve
  • Sea Levels Rising
  • It is settled science.

Ice Core Samples

Closer inspection of the ice core samples disclosed that higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 occurred at the end of the warm cycles. Oceans are a huge sink for carbon dioxide and, like the open root beer loses its fizz when left sitting out at room temperature, they can hold less gas when the climate warms. When solar activity heats up the oceans, CO2 is given up to the atmosphere. It is an effect of global warming, not a cause.

Hockey Stick Curve

When the IPCC’s declaration that the 20th century was the hottest in history didn’t square with the Medieval warm period, it was necessary to make it disappear. Michael Mann, two years removed from his PhD in physics, fabricated a temperature curve that supported their assertions with a relatively flat shape until it made an abrupt upturn at the 20th century, hence the term ‘hockey stick’ was applied to it. It was used to justify the warmists’ theory of everything. Referring to the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR), author Christopher Booker in his book The Real Global Warming Disaster quotes an unnamed observer, “without it, the TAR would have been a very different document, it would not have been able to conclude what it did, nor could the IPCC have convinced world leaders to take the actions they subsequently took.”

“Hockey Stick” Global Temperature Curve

The unusual hockey stick shape intrigued some people who were not associated with climate science, but experts in graphical representations. Stephen McIntyre, a financial consultant and statistical analyst, joined by Guelph University economics professor Ross McKitrick, analyzed the hockey stick. They were familiar with hockey stick algorithms used by people to sell a business prospect. In short, they showed the curve to be without merit based upon dubious assumptions.

Glaciers Melting, Sea Levels Rising

There is a wide disagreement on the question of sea level elevation. Who can forget the scene in Al Gore’s movie, an “Inconvenient Truth” when he rides a man-lift up 17 feet to dramatize the global warming effect on sea levels?

Expertise

Whenever AGW is questioned, the answer is always, “it’s settled science”. They go on to say that 97% or even 99% of scientists agree. They ignore the caliber of those who disagree, who include Freeman Dyson (who supported Obama), Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever, and Green guru James Lovelock, who said, ‘I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy.’

Conclusion

According to Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is settled science, proclaim the predictors of weather doomsday. Settled Science? Science evolves continuously and can never be settled, unless, of course, the ‘settled’ subject is dogma, not science. Is it just a ‘my way or the highway’ attempt by vested interests to close discussion on their terms?

Consider the term “peer reviewed”. Science evolves through the contribution of new ideas which are published so that their peers (other scientists) can review, validate, contribute, or argue with them. If we had accepted Niels Bohr’s version of the atom as settled science, there would have been no subatomic particles discovered and nuclear fission might not have ever been attempted, which would be perfectly okay with the modern day flat-earthers.

In 1990, we find the United Nations’ formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chartered to remedy carbon dioxide induced global warming without ever pausing to examine the plausibility of the theory.

A key feature of this plan is a carbon tax to be levied on developed economies with proceeds going to less developed countries (read members of the UN general assembly). The goal is to provide incentives to restrict fossil fuel development and invest (read sink money) in wind farms and solar panels with much higher costs per energy unit produced.

It also incentivizes participating governments to create grant funds for environmental lobby groups who make political contributions to the politicians responsible for creating those funds.

The ‘Science’

Combustion of fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal contributes to a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is defined as ‘greenhouse’ gas meaning that it traps heat in the atmosphere leading to an increase in ambient air temperature.

A temperature increase for the planet will cause melting polar ice caps with flooding of coastal areas, polar bear extinction, increased severe weather and drought.

Solutions include solar panels and wind farms, the so-called renewable energies.

The Real Science

Earth temperatures have been fluctuating, up and down, in response to sun activity forever. Polar ice cap fluctuations have been observed to coincide between Earth, Mars and other planets in our solar system. A striking example of the effect of sun activity is illustrated by the Maunder Minimum, a 200 year pause in sun activity which coincided with the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period.

In 1990, the IPCC said this is the likely historic temperature history of the planet for the last 1000 years:

A comparison with sunspot activity discloses the real driver behind temperature variations.

The Little Ice Age was deemed to have ended in 1849 and sunspot activity, until recently, has generally risen since then, accounting for gradually rising temperatures.

CO2 Myth

Graphical representation of a 2500 molecule air sample.

A 2500-molecule air sample will contain 1952 molecules of nitrogen, 524 molecules of oxygen, 23 molecules of argon and one molecule of carbon dioxide (in red).

This is the mathematical equivalent of 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide which MMCC advocates say approaches the level of irreversible change, killing polar bears and inundating our coastal areas. Since carbon dioxide has a specific heat only about twice the other air constituents, it is difficult to see how it could impart a measurable temperature increase to the other 2499 air molecules. That would be like powering the lights of a major sports stadium through a single household extension cord.

The pie-shaped red area in the figure above represents the 11 percent portion of the infrared wave length which can react with CO2.

Climate Deception

AGW fanatics have relied on four key deceptions to keep their story alive:

  • Ice core samples reveal higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 during warm periods in the planet’s history.
  • Hockey Stick Curve
  • Sea Levels Rising
  • It is settled science.

Ice Core Samples

Closer inspection of the ice core samples disclosed that higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 occurred at the end of the warm cycles. Oceans are a huge sink for carbon dioxide and, like the open root beer loses its fizz when left sitting out at room temperature, they can hold less gas when the climate warms. When solar activity heats up the oceans, CO2 is given up to the atmosphere. It is an effect of global warming, not a cause.

Hockey Stick Curve

When the IPCC’s declaration that the 20th century was the hottest in history didn’t square with the Medieval warm period, it was necessary to make it disappear. Michael Mann, two years removed from his PhD in physics, fabricated a temperature curve that supported their assertions with a relatively flat shape until it made an abrupt upturn at the 20th century, hence the term ‘hockey stick’ was applied to it. It was used to justify the warmists’ theory of everything. Referring to the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR), author Christopher Booker in his book The Real Global Warming Disaster quotes an unnamed observer, “without it, the TAR would have been a very different document, it would not have been able to conclude what it did, nor could the IPCC have convinced world leaders to take the actions they subsequently took.”

“Hockey Stick” Global Temperature Curve

The unusual hockey stick shape intrigued some people who were not associated with climate science, but experts in graphical representations. Stephen McIntyre, a financial consultant and statistical analyst, joined by Guelph University economics professor Ross McKitrick, analyzed the hockey stick. They were familiar with hockey stick algorithms used by people to sell a business prospect. In short, they showed the curve to be without merit based upon dubious assumptions.

Glaciers Melting, Sea Levels Rising

There is a wide disagreement on the question of sea level elevation. Who can forget the scene in Al Gore’s movie, an “Inconvenient Truth” when he rides a man-lift up 17 feet to dramatize the global warming effect on sea levels?

Expertise

Whenever AGW is questioned, the answer is always, “it’s settled science”. They go on to say that 97% or even 99% of scientists agree. They ignore the caliber of those who disagree, who include Freeman Dyson (who supported Obama), Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever, and Green guru James Lovelock, who said, ‘I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy.’

Conclusion

According to Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

Posted in Alternative Energy, Climate Change, Education, Science | Comments Off on Is climate change man-made

Israel and Saudi Arabia cooperate

theatlantic.com

How a Saudi-Israeli Alliance Could Benefit the Palestinians

Hussein Ibish

The flirtation between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which has been gaining momentum both publicly and privately in recent years, seems to be picking up even more steam now, especially on the Israeli side. Israel’s Military Chief of Staff General Gadi Eizenkot gave a wide-ranging interview to a major Saudi website offering greater intelligence cooperation, among other overtures. Israel is co-sponsoring a draft Saudi UN resolution on Syria. And Israel’s communications minister praised comments by the Saudi Grand Mufti that were highly critical of Hamas, and invited him to visit Israel. Reciprocal Saudi moves have been more subtle and often unofficial, yet signs of an increasing recognition of the potential value of working more closely with Israel to counter Iran are readily discernible in Gulf Arab discourse.

Most attention on this issue has focused on Iran, because countering Tehran’s growing regional power—particularly as the war in Syria winds down, and with Iran and its allies gaining control of key strategic areas along the Syrian-Iraqi border—is uppermost in the minds of Saudis and Israelis alike. Both also feel keenly menaced by Iran’s most effective Arab proxy, Hezbollah, which has emerged from the Syrian war much more powerful than before, and has engaged in conflicts around the region. But, especially if something more significant develops from these overtures, what might all this mean for the Palestinians?

The instinctive Palestinian, and arguably more broadly Arab, reaction would be negative. The traditional assumption has been that the Palestinian cause benefits from a zero-sum attitude toward Israel by the Arab states that, at a minimum, demands a complete end to the occupation that began in 1967, before significant diplomatic progress with Arab states can be purposefully initiated. There’s still a strong sense of betrayal about Egypt’s separate peace with Israel in 1979; there’s somewhat more understanding about why Jordan undertook a similar treaty with Israel following the Israeli-Palestinian Oslo Accords.Many Palestinians and their supporters are likely to instantly conclude that any meaningful efforts at building a new strategic relationship between Israel and Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia will be at their expense. This is certainly understandable, but it’s by no means necessarily correct. In fact, there is every reason for Palestinians to see far more opportunity than danger in these potential developments.

A new opening between Saudi Arabia and Israel wouldn’t deprive Palestinians of anything they currently possess that has either real or potential value. It certainly wouldn’t make the occupation worse or do anything that’s likely to prolong it. To the contrary, given the political constraints the Gulf Arab countries face domestically and regionally—as well as their genuinely held (if sometimes, though unfairly, doubted by both Palestinians and Westerners) sympathy with the Palestinian cause—there are major limitations to how far Saudi Arabia and others could or would publicly go in developing closer ties to Israel.

The Arab Peace Initiative, launched by Riyadh in 2002 and subsequently endorsed by both the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, initially held out full diplomatic and trade normalization for Israel with virtually the entire Arab and Muslim worlds as a major additional benefit to be acquired upon the conclusion of a peace agreement with the Palestinians. The Arab, and especially Saudi, position appears to have evolved lately to accept the virtue of “concurrence,” whereby limited Israeli peace moves and concessions toward the Palestinians, such as restricting settlements in the occupied territories, would be matched by concomitant limited Gulf Arab gestures toward Israel, such as civil aviation cooperation or even some limited official meetings. The idea is that a virtuous circle could be created in which new paths to an eventual peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and then the full normalization with the Arab and Muslim worlds for Israel, can be accomplished.Naturally this isn’t what Palestinians would ideally want, either as a process or, possibly, as an outcome. However, it may be the best they can hope for under the circumstances, and certainly seems to be the only game in town. Palestinians would be wise to remember how isolated and forlorn they were during most of the second Obama administration, with their issue essentially consigned to John Kerry’s wish list and nothing more. They virtually disappeared from the international, and even the Arab, stage, and became an afterthought even though their cause continued to be exploited by a wide range of terrorist groups. But the potential for a new strategic relationship between Israel and Gulf Arab countries was one of the main reasons why the incoming Trump administration, to the astonishment of many, resurrected the Israeli-Palestinian issue and made it a central feature of the White House’s agenda. Palestinians, particularly those associated with the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization, were utterly delighted to have been resurrected politically and diplomatically by this unexpected development.

Now the Trump team says that, after studying the issue for 10 months, it is on the brink of coming up with its new plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace, which seems to be some version of the traditional two-state solution but almost certainly involves the “outside-in” approach of seeking momentum between the two parties by introducing a new Saudi and Gulf Arab role in outreach to Israel. Almost lost in the swirl of drama surrounding the mass arrest of prominent citizens in Saudi Arabia, the Houthi missile fired at Riyadh International Airport from Yemen, and the resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, was the telling fact that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was summoned to Riyadh for a meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the midst of all that chaos. The meeting may have focused on the next steps in squeezing Hamas to give up more of its control over Gaza. But there was also speculation, particularly in the Israeli media, that the Palestinian leader was being told to prepare to cooperate with a forthcoming American peace effort if he values Saudi friendship.

No doubt this all feels somewhat coercive to Palestinians, who, like the Lebanese, are often at the mercy of more powerful players. However, there isn’t any other obvious path forward for Palestinians. Though they may have to adjust their expectations, they definitely stand to be net beneficiaries of a greater openness between Israel and Arab countries that, politically, would have to insist on movement on Palestinian issues in order to develop a new strategic relationship with the Jewish state. At least to some extent and at times, others might be negotiating on Palestinians’ behalf, which is plainly sub-optimal. But there doesn’t seem to be any other way of generating momentum on Palestinian concerns, and without this component, it’s likely that the Trump administration will, like its immediate predecessor, quickly become fed up and walk away, leaving Israel relatively secure and prosperous and the Palestinians in a profoundly unenviable position.

It’s unlikely that many Palestinians share the degree of alarm that Israelis and Saudis feel about the growth of Iranian power in the Middle East, and particularly the emergence of an Iranian-controlled “land bridge” between Tehran and Lebanon and its Mediterranean coast. Yet this is a strategic game changer that, if consolidated, would greatly strengthen the regional clout of the most cynical exploiter of their issue in recent decades: Iran. Palestinians would be well advised to view the potential dialogue between Israel and Arab countries like Saudi Arabia as an opportunity to prevent their issues from being once again egregiously exploited or discarded.In the longer term, a wider opening between Israel and the Gulf Ar

ab countries that are now largely driving the broader Arab agenda, especially when they collaborate with Egypt and Jordan, is currently the only viable path toward the resurrection of a process that can bring about, eventually, an end to the occupation and the realization of Palestinian independence. In the meanwhile, if it flourishes, such a new regional reality is bound to involve some benefits to Palestinians, and to keep their cause central to the strategic thinking of Washington and its key Middle Eastern allies. Therefore, it would be wise for Palestinians to look for ways of maximizing how this dynamic can work for them rather than indulging in knee-jerk denunciations and recriminations that will gain them nothing.

Posted in Middle East, Monotheistic Religions, Recent Posts | Comments Off on Israel and Saudi Arabia cooperate

Jews and Arabs work together

Study shows Jews, Arabs work together in Jerusalem despite tensions

Posted in Middle East, News Articles, Recent Posts | Comments Off on Jews and Arabs work together