- April 2018
- March 2018
- October 2017
- July 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- November 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
- September 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2013
- June 2012
- February 2012
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- April 2011
More and more people publicly share their concern about incentives caused by US military aid for Israel. The problem we had discussed since 2011 (Yanovskiy Moshe, US Aid for Israel – A Historical Overview (version on March 3, 2014).
Ex-ambassador Yoram Ettinger presented his reasons why Israel shouldn’t accept U.S. aid? Previously he insisted. Ettinger had explained previously, that ‘Israel Must Be Defiant; ‘US Doesn’t Want a Wimp Ally‘ so US Aid harms both sides.
Former Israeli general (Maj. Gen. (Res) Gershon Hacohen, former commander of the IDF’s Northern Command and head of the army’s war colleges): US military aid harms Israel. General is focused on conditionalities of the programs mainly.
Unfortunately, government of Israel being fully aware of the problem follows the course predicted by Mancur Olson theory of special interests groups – asking for more and more ‘generous’ US Aid programs.
General references on Rashi:
“According to Rashi, who was one of the most important pillars of Jewish thought, this story teaches us that liberty has a price; that it’s better to have a bitter leaf taken directly from the hand of God than to be given something sweet as honey by mortal men, … The lesson here is that the bitter taste of things we accomplish on our own is preferable to the sweet privileges than can imprison us.”
New paper’s ‘To Kill Hope? In Search of a Reliable Strategy to Fight Terrorism’ draft is uploaded for critics in free access at ssrn: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2745935
Nor does history of Israel suggest any reasonable expectation that terrorists will be appeased by concessions of any kind, whether transfer of funds or relinquishing territory to terrorist control. Neither statistical analysis nor the study of particular cases support such a hypothesis.
The same feeling had expressed B.Netanyahu: ‘Terror comes from hope, not frustration’
The immediate and most obvious criterion of success for belligerent is the control of new territory and its population, which allows terrorists freedom of movement and opportunities to try new terrorist technologies and take the initiative in dynamic situations. Loss of land and population, humiliating defeat, or ostentatious display of triumph by the enemy, in contrast, discourage both terrorist leaders and perpetrators, who would lose the posthumous reward typically promised them in the guise of prestige and income for their families.
Factual instances and statistical data provide evidence to support the hypothesis that terrorism is best put down by force. When opting for such a strategy, it is of critical importance that military personnel be provided with appropriate legal protection.
Few additional stories available in Supplemental materials.
The paper contains three stories. The 1st – Israel legal system take its position at war. Since Israel court system choose to become politicized and sided Left parties in their political struggle. Judges’ decisions regarding security problems experienced pretty specific shift to the position, presented below. The 2nd covers issue of competing claims for murder, proving rational approach of terrorists gangs leaders in their fundraising. The 3rd story brings rational interpretation for Israel mainstream (leftist) mass Medias’ coverage of terrorism in support of “peace process” solution.
Euro-bureaucrats had invited millions savages from Middle East and North Africa. It turned to be new “Europeans” destined by Brussels to vote for Big Unlimited Government, say, not obsessed by their children fate. Now it turned to be 10000 children missed and they even not care… They hate us more than love their children, as Golda Meir once has said.
Pay attention, no “official” feminists cry for the missed children, no one child-caring bureaucrat has been detected working hard to prevent massive disappearance. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) of September 2, 1990 prepared and adopted mainly as an judicial instrument to take a child from the family “in the best interests of the child” (see article 9) – it is not about missing 10000 children. Leftist Guardian already preparing to blame “white christian European men” for sex exploitation of poor cute creatures in the Hungary and in Germany.
So, unfortunately, our worst expectations on real intentions of governmental intervention in intra-family relations of law-abiding people of the West and, specifically regarding government which belongs in nursery come true.
Washington Post have published just before November 2014 Elections short Manual on “where to commit electoral fraud”. The fraud masters from Democratic party supporting Unions got the signal and interpreted it quite clearly and rationally (the fact they failed generally that time doesn’t means fraud is tolerable). Situation have being improved a little bit since November, 2014 (see current photo-ID legislation state-by-state).
The most disturbing news is the fact the courts having struck down the laws in some states adopting legislation requirement to bring photo ID for to vote (!).
I’m afraid, in Long Run Republican will need badly to adopt old southern democrat’s experience (see citation below, how Universal Suffrage caused disenfranchising, corruption and Welfare state). In 1870-ties electoral fraud was broadly used by republicans (radical, “progressive”) to retain control in southern (Dixie) states. During 1870-ties southern democrats fired back with their own fraud experience: they paid the black for to vote Democratic party and recovered (restored their power) in the South till 1964.
I’m sure, this sort of counter fraud will be morally legitimate at list in the states, infected by liberal court’s activism.
1866 pre-history: “Again coercion and force became the order of the day. Declaring the state governments created under Johnson nonexistent, the Radicals divided ten Southern states into five military districts and put them under the rule of major generals and an army of occupation. Frankly revolutionary in mood, Thaddeus Stevens and his followers overrode constitutional restraints right and left. They created a new electorate of more than 700,000 Negroes and pared down the white voters by disfranchisement to a total of some 627,000. The Radicals displaced six governors and supplanted thousands of lesser officials with their own men; they purged three legislatures of conservative members, threw out laws that displeased them, suppressed or ignored civil courts, denied the right to trial by jury, and violated freedom of press and speech. All this was done, of course, in the name of democracy. And in truth history does not record a more drastic application of the democratic dogma. In addition to the sudden creation of the new Negro electorate, the Radicals set up new state constitutions that were several leaps ahead of the old ones in a progressive direction. They reformed judicial procedure, court organization, and county organization, and established, on paper at least, a broad conception of the government’s responsibility for the people’s welfare that was new to the South. Woodward, C. Vann (1991-03-28). Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction (pp. 14-15). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
1877 history: Treasury, testified before a House committee that Governor J. Madison Wells had commissioned him to come to Washington and put the votes of Louisiana up for sale. “He said he wanted at least 200,000 apiece for himself and Anderson and a smaller amount for the niggers,” testified Maddox.13 Even Republican papers admitted that these developments threw “a terrible suspicion over the action of the Louisiana Returning Board, and seriously involved a number of men whom the country has tried hard to think well of.”14 Woodward, C. Vann (1991-03-28). Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction (p. 155). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
Anti – parent bill “Parents and their Kids” (see M.Feiglin’s comments on the bill) was defeated today in Knesset 41:42.
The bill adoption’s main consequence would be aggravated enforcement in Israel so called Convention on the Rights of the Child (hereafter, CRC). The CRC prescribes the only “Right” for the child – to be separated by force from his (her) parents “in his ) her best interest” – see Article 9 – the only clause with real sense in this document. The core idea of the bill is to cancel the acting legislation’s’ assumption of parental rights. These rights are already reduced to the “guardian” / “custodian” level. The bill establish so-called “parental responsibility for the children’s good” instead the parental Rights. This small terminological change would cause great change in enforcement. It would be more than enough for Israel activist Court system to use the new Law to secure courts’ unrestricted power to intervene in private family relations, to rule, to control the family institution in the country.
The bill sponsored by equality (!) minister Gila Gamlieli and Member of Knesset Yoav Kish (both, Likud) in attempt to broaden support for the bill included in it the section which would have canceled the so called Tender Years Presumption in the current Family Legislation, which says that in divorce, children under six will be in their mothers’ custody on default (automatically).
Most of coalition members (Likud, Jewish Home) voted in favor the bill. Vocal leftist extremist opposition speaker – Zahava Gal’on claimed mother’s need to use their children as a weapon in her war on man during divorce (famous feminist mantra “to empower women” by any price). She blasted the Bill sponsors for their “betrayal” of mother’s rights. All numerous Knesset feminists from opposition factions (Labor, Meretz, Yesh Atid) and even from coalition member “Kulanu” faction were conscripted against the bill (for short review on parties currently represented in the Knesset see our short report).
Even so-called “orthodox” Shas party objected against the clause which actually fits Halacha (Jewish traditional Law) not against clear attempt of the Bill to challenge 5th Commandment: ”Honour thy Farther and Mother that thy days may be long upon the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee” void and introduce instead something like “.
The attempt to declare 5th Commandment void in the Knesset of Israel failed this time. But we haven’t got any reason for optimism regarding new Big Government’s attempts to wage Jihad against the family institution. We addressed this danger in our reports previously (gender role of Government; Limits of Governmental intervention…) and we are full of resolution to advance further ideas of strong family institution, priority of parental power and responsibility free from Big Government “care” and interventions .
Syrian “refugees invasion actualizes problems we addressed in our book.
First and foremost it is an issue of corruption of incentives by welfare state. Politicians encouraged to “import” voters, bureaucrats to “import” new clients, supportive to their claim for more generous budget.
Finally, welfare programs create adverse selection incentives machinery, attracting worst people instead of the best, poor educated and intolerant instead of well educated and ready to accept western values and identity of the country of their adoption. No any doubts, huge majority of “refugees” will prefer lasting welfare to hard work and social adaptation in the European countries.