Category Archives: history

P.A.’s Abbas’ New York Times Op-Ed Filled With Lies

by Morton Klein

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has pointed out that, in the op-ed space granted to Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas in the New York Times (May 16), Abbas has produced a collection of shameless falsehoods.

• “It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued” [ZOA: Abbas neglects to mention that the Palestinians and Arab states utterly rejected the offer the UN proposal of a state and instead went to war to prevent Israel’s emergence.

• “Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued” [ZOA: In fact, the Arab side launched attacks on Palestine’s Jews even before the end of the British Mandate and the proclamation of Israel’s establishment in May 1948. In anticipation of the impending invasion of Arab armies, which commenced the day Israel was declared, many Arabs started leaving while still under British rule. Often, Jewish appeals for Arabs to stay, as in Haifa and Tiberias, went unheeded. Most of those Palestinian Arabs who left did so in the chaos and fog of the war which they and the neighboring Arab states had initiated. In contrast, every Jew was expelled from the West Bank, illegally seized by Jordan. Had there been no Arab-initiated war, there would have been no refugees – on either side.]

• “Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, the United States granted it recognition. Our Palestinian state, however, remains a promise unfulfilled … Only if the international community keeps the promise it made to us six decades ago, and ensures that a just resolution for Palestinian refugees is put into effect, can there be a future of hope and dignity for our people” [ZOA: The UN General Assembly in 1947 recommended the creation of an Arab state and a Jewish state in Palestine, which was an international offer of statehood – not a “promise” – and it was utterly rejected, as mentioned, the Palestinians and Arab states at the time. The Arab parties were explicit about their reasons – they rejected the legitimacy of a Jewish state alongside an Arab state. That rejection persists from Mr. Abbas to this day, who has said that, “I do not accept the Jewish State, call it what you will.” In 2000, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered a Palestinian state on almost all the territories mentioned by Abbas, but was turned down. During 1948-67, no Palestinian state was set up, despite Judea, Samaria and Gaza then being under Arab control, because the primary goal was and remains Israel’s elimination, not a Palestinian state].

• “Israel continues to send more settlers to the occupied West Bank and denies Palestinians access to most of our land and holy places, particularly in Jerusalem” [ZOA: All Muslim shrines, like the Al Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock, have functioned continuously in Jerusalem under Israel rule. Jerusalem’s Arab population has increased, as has Arab construction. In fact, it is only under Israeli rule that there has been genuine freedom of religion in historic Jerusalem. Under its previous (and illegal) Jordanian occupiers, every synagogue was razed and Jews were barred from merely visiting the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site. Under Abbas’ PA, Jewish shrines, like Joseph’s Tomb, have been torched and violated. Last year, his government published an official “study” claiming that Jews have no rights or historical connection to the Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. In Gaza, under Hamas, with which Abbas has just signed a unity agreement, most Christians have fled for their lives.]

• “we have met all prerequisites to statehood listed in the Montevideo Convention, the 1933 treaty that sets out the rights and duties of states …” [ZOA: The PA does not meet all necessary international legal criteria for statehood. It does not exercise control in defined territory, as Israel shares in a range of responsibilities by agreement in at least some PA-controlled areas, while PA rule has not extended for years to Hamas-run Gaza and still does not at time of writing. Moreover, the PA is a signatory to the Oslo Agreements in which it committed itself to not altering the political status of the PA territories, except by a negotiated settlement with Israel.]

• “The State of Palestine intends to be a peace-loving nation, committed to human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the principles of the United Nations Charter. Once admitted to the United Nations, our state stands ready to negotiate all core issues of the conflict with Israel” [ZOA: The PA is a terrorist-supporting entity run by Fatah, whose Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is a deadly and proscribed terrorist organization which has murdered hundreds of Israeli civilians. Scores of streets, schools and sports teams have been named in honor of terrorists who murdered Jews. Fatah’s’ 43rd anniversary emblem shows all of Israel draped in a kffiyeh, with a picture of Arafat and a Kalashnikov rifle alongside it. It recently signed a unity government agreement with Hamas, which calls in its Charter for the destruction of Israel (Article 15) and the murder of Jews (Article 7). In seeking to circumvent negotiations and alter the political status, Abbas fails to mention that any such unilateral act violates the 1995 Oslo II agreement, which stipulates that “Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”]

• “A key focus of negotiations will be reaching a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on Resolution 194, which the General Assembly passed in 1948” [ZOA: UN General Assembly Resolution 194 is a non-binding resolution that all Arab states rejected at the time. Every refugee problem of the twentieth century has been resolved by resettlement, not repatriation, which the PA demands].

• “We go to the United Nations now to secure the right to live free in the remaining 22 percent of our historic homeland because we have been negotiating with the State of Israel for 20 years without coming any closer to realizing a state of our own” [ZOA: The land earmarked for the British Mandate and for settlement by Jews with a view to eventual Jewish statehood includes present-day Jordan, which constitutes 78% of the territory in question. It is Israel itself, plus Judea, Samaria and Gaza, which constitutes 22% of the territory earmarked for Jewish settlement, of which 12% was offered in 1947 for a Jewish state and 10% for another Arab state]

Read Mahmoud Abbas’ NYT article by clicking here.

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “The Palestinian Authority’s Mahmoud Abbas has shown in his New York Times op-ed that his historical revisionism is not limited to the Holocaust, which he denied in a 1982 doctoral thesis at Moscow’s Oriental College and in 1983 book; it extends to the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948. It is a tragic commentary on our times that such a mendacious and error-ridden piece could be published in a leading newspaper.”

There Is No Palestinian State

by Efraim Karsh

As the United Nations prepares to vote next week on the issue of Palestinian statehood, it might be worth bearing in mind that whatever the outcome, the result will certainly not be the creation of an actual Palestinian state, any more than the November 1947 partition resolution spelled the inevitable creation of a Jewish one.

In 1948, Israel came into being due to the extraordinary cohesion of Palestine’s Jewish community (the Yishuv). Armed with an unwavering sense of purpose and an extensive network of institutions, the Yishuv managed to surmount a bevy of international obstacles and fend off a pan-Arab attempt to destroy it. Likewise, it was the total lack of communal solidarity—the willingness to subordinate personal interest to the collective good—that accounted for the collapse and dispersion of Palestinian Arab society as its leaders tried to subvert partition.
Sixty-four years later, Palestinian society seems no better prepared for statehood. And the U.N. would be doing the Palestinians a great disservice by accepting the corrupt and dysfunctional Palestinian Authority as its newest member. While this would hardly be the first failed state to be delivered by the world organization, the unique circumstances of its possible birth make failure a foregone conclusion, and the consequences are too dire to contemplate.

The building of the Jewish state began in the Swiss town of Basel in 1889 at the First Zionist Congress, which defined Zionism’s goal as “the creation of a home for the Jewish people in Palestine to be secured by public law,” and established institutions to promote it. By the time the League of Nations appointed Britain as the mandatory for Palestine 23 years later, the Yishuv had been transformed into a cohesive and organized national community that provided most of Palestine’s Jewry with work, trade union protection as well as with education, health care, and defense.

By contrast, it was the tragedy of the Palestinians that the two leaders who determined their national development during the 20th century—Hajj Amin Husseini and Yasser Arafat—were far more interested in destroying the Jewish national cause than leading their own people. As far back as 1978, Arafat told his close friend and collaborator, Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, that the Palestinians lacked the traditions, unity, and discipline to have a successful state. Once given control of parts of the West Bank and Gaza, this prognosis became a self-fulfilling prophecy, as his regime quickly became oppressive and corrupt. Later it helped launch the second intifada, the bloodiest and most destructive confrontation between Israelis and Palestinians since the 1948 war. In the process, he destroyed the fragile civil society and relatively productive economy that had developed during the previous decade.

Paradoxically, it was Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip during the June 1967 war that laid the groundwork for Palestinian civil society. Not only did it bring the issue of Palestinian independence to the forefront of the international agenda, but it also produced dramatic improvements in the Palestinians’ quality of life. During the occupation, the territories became the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world—ahead of Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. From 1967 to 2000, life expectancy rose from 48 to 72, while infant mortality fell from 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 births in 2000. And while there was not a single university that existed in the West Bank or Gaza before Israeli rule, by the mid-1990s, there were seven such institutions, boasting more than 16,000 students.

All of these achievements were steadily undone after Oslo, as Arafat’s regime took control over parts of the territories. In September of 1993, conditions in the West Bank and Gaza were still better than those in most neighboring Arab states—and this despite the economic decline caused by the first intifada. Within six months of Arafat’s arrival in Gaza, the standard of living in the strip fell by 25 percent, and more than half of the area’s residents claimed to have been happier under Israeli rule. The launch of the second intifada six years later dealt the death blow to the economic and institutional gains that Israel bequeathed.

In an apparent departure from this destructive path, in the summer of 2007, PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad embarked on the first true state-building effort in Palestinian history. And he has had some modest successes, most notably a sustained economic recovery that has nearly restored the West Bank’s pre-intifada levels of performance. Yet Fayyad has created no new institutions, and the PA remains a corrupt and wholly dysfunctional organization. The Palestinian prime minister may claim to have laid the groundwork for a democratic Palestine, but the presidency of Mahmoud Abbas, and by extension his own position, are totally unconstitutional. Not only did Abbas defy Hamas’s landslide victory in the January 2006 parliamentary election, but Abbas’s presidency expired more than two years ago.

No less important, the two factions dominating Palestinian life, the Hamas and Fatah, remain armed groups, and active practitioners of terrorism—an assured recipe for a failed state. The Oslo Accords charged the PA to dismantle all armed groups in the West Bank and Gaza, but Arafat never complied; David Ben-Gurion, by contrast, dissolved all Jewish underground movements within a fortnight from Israel’s independence, incorporating them into the newly established Israeli Defense Forces. Following statehood, even if Abbas were to make a genuine commitment to reform, Hamas would continue to defy his tenuous authority; not only does the group rule the Gaza Strip, which it has transformed into an Islamist micro-state, but it also wields considerable power in the West Bank.

Small wonder that recent surveys show that more Palestinians in east Jerusalem, who are entitled to Israeli social benefits and are free to travel across Israel’s pre-1967 borders, would rather become citizens of the Jewish state than citizens of a new Palestinian one. Two thirds of them believe that a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence backed by the U.N. would have no positive effect. And they’re right. Unfortunately the ramifications—increased conflict with Israel and a deepening rift in an already divided Palestinian society—are manifold. Once again, the Palestinian leadership is leading its people astray.

This article was originally published in the The Daily Beast on September 16, 2011.

Efraim Karsh is research professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King’s College London, director of the Middle East Forum (Philadelphia) and author, most recently, of Palestine Betrayed.

The Tragedy of 9/11 and American Exceptionalism

By Paul Eidelberg

What may we learn from 9/11, the Islamic attack on the United States on September 11, 2001? Osama bin Laden had already declared war against the U.S. on August 23, 1996. Al Qaeda forces had already attacked two American embassies in Africa on August 7, 1998 and a U.S. naval vessel on October 12, 2000. So what is so significant about 9/11 when hijacked commercial airliners struck the New York World Trade Center and the Pentagon? (Read More)

When Martin Luther King Reached the Point of No Return

By John W. Whitehead

“I have begun the struggle and I can’t turn back. I have reached the point of no return.”—Martin Luther King Jr.

The official dedication of the Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial took place on Sunday, August 28th, the 48th anniversary of King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech. If anyone deserves a national monument in his honor, it would certainly be Martin Luther King Jr., a man who inspired countless Americans, including myself, to take a stand against injustice.

King was an amazing individual: courageous, passionate about freedom, willing to tackle large-scale issues (such as materialism, militarism and the Vietnam War), and relentless in his pursuit of justice—he stood his ground, even in the face of death threats and opposition from friends and associates. A warrior and a visionary, King saw first-hand what tyranny looked like and worked tirelessly to oppose it. As King observed, “The universe is on the side of justice.”

King’s journey to the “mountaintop,” as he put it, began with a boycott in Montgomery, Alabama. City officials had done everything possible to stem the boycott of their segregated bus system by the black citizens of Montgomery. Inevitably, the city resorted to what had always worked in the past: the use of police power.

The date was January 26, 1956. It was in the afternoon, and the young minister of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, was on his way home with two fellow church members. The acknowledged leader of the highly controversial boycott, he was put on notice to follow the traffic laws meticulously. There was no reason to make himself an easy target for arrest. But, as fate would have it, the police targeted the young minister, and he was arrested: “Get out King; you are under arrest for speeding thirty miles an hour in a twenty-five mile zone.”

Thus began Martin Luther King Jr.’s journey toward jail. The moment of truth, however, had arrived for the young minister. Warned that he could be made to disappear by the authorities, fear began to grip King. As he writes:

As we drove off, presumably to the city jail, a feeling of panic began to come over me. I had always had the impression that the jail was in the downtown section of Montgomery. Yet after riding for a while I noticed that we were going in a different direction. The more we rode the farther we were from the center of town. In a few minutes we turned into a dark and dingy street that I had never seen and headed under a desolate old bridge. By this time I was convinced that these men were carrying me to some faraway spot to dump me off. “But this couldn’t be,” I said to myself. “These men are officers of the law.” Then I began to wonder whether they were driving me out to some waiting mob, planning to use the excuse later on that they had been overpowered. I found myself trembling within and without. Silently, I asked God to give me the strength to endure whatever came.

This was at the height of segregation in the American system. It was a time where, when blacks got out of line, at a minimum they faced jail time. Only a month earlier, Rosa Parks, a seamstress, had refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus to a white man. This violation of the segregation law brought a swift arrest.

But King by now was the troublemaker. Cut off the head and the movement dies. This King knew. That is why he began to panic as his ride with the police continued:

By this time we were passing under the bridge. I was sure now that I was going to meet my fateful hour on the other side. But as I looked up I noticed a glaring light in the distance, and soon I saw the words “Montgomery City Jail.” I was so relieved that it was some time before I realized the irony of my position: going to jail at that moment seemed like going to some safe haven!

As the jail doors slammed shut behind King, he felt a strong inner peace: “For the moment strange gusts of emotion swept through me like cold winds on an open prairie. For the first time in my life I had been thrown behind bars.”

Soon King’s bail was posted and King was free to leave. But King’s rendezvous with jail cells was just beginning. More importantly, the movement that began in Montgomery was moving beyond state borders. A nationwide movement with a capital M was in process. This made King even more of a target.

Several weeks later, King happened to be in Nashville giving a lecture when he learned that he, with others, had been indicted by a grand jury for violating Montgomery’s segregation laws. He immediately booked a flight home, stopping over to see his father in Atlanta. Martin Luther King Sr. recognized that a new scenario had developed. The threat was no longer jail time. It was death. “My father, so unafraid for himself,” writes King, “had fallen into a constant state of terror for me and my family.”

Earlier, King’s home in Montgomery had been bombed and the police were watching his every move. After the bombing, King’s mother had taken to bed under doctor’s orders. King’s father brought some of Atlanta’s leading citizens into his home to speak with his son about the dangers of returning to Montgomery. But King knew that often courage in the face of tyranny is all that the oppressed have at their disposal. It was time, as King said, to take a stand. As he told those assembled:

My friends and associates are being arrested. It would be the height of cowardice for me to stay away. I would rather be in jail ten years than desert my people now. I have begun the struggle, and I can’t turn back. I have reached the point of no return.

Upon arrival in Montgomery, King headed for jail to discover that the others indicted with King had the day before surrendered for arrest. “A once fear-ridden people had been transformed. Those who had previously trembled before the law were now proud to be arrested for the cause of freedom.”

Against incredible odds, the blacks of Montgomery won the right to be treated equally on the city’s buses. Soon, the movement took on amazing proportions which would compel a government that refused to hear their pleas to listen and heed their demands. But not a shot was fired by the blacks of Montgomery. Led by a man who believed in nonviolent resistance to government oppression—a man who believed that governments must listen to and heed our demands, these brave people would soon transform the face of America.

Few suspected that King’s voice would be prematurely silenced, but King knew his days were numbered. He knew there was a larger force at work in his life. And that’s how he concluded his sermon—the last words he spoke in public:

Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn’t matter with me now. Because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land. And I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

Forty-three years after King’s assassination, our nation is still plagued with wars, government surveillance and a military-industrial complex that feeds a national diet of warmongering. And King, once a charismatic leader and voice of authority, has been memorialized in death to such an extent that younger generations recognize his face but miss out on his message. Yet he still speaks volumes to us today.

“Speaking truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act,” George Orwell once said. Such was Martin Luther King. They may have killed the man, but his spirit of truth lives on. We would do well to learn from him how to speak truth to power.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Endowed, Not Evolved: Why Man’s Origin Matters to Our Rights

By Gary Palmer

The recent attack against Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s belief that mankind was created by God raises deeper questions than the usual “evolution” questions.

It appears that there is more to these protests than concerns for science or the typical hypersensitivity that many liberals have any time a high-profile leader says anything that disputes their orthodoxy concerning the origin of man. Skepticism about the belief that man is the product of random chance or evolved in the same way as other species strikes at the core of what some people believe about man and government.

In America, the rights of man are inseparably linked to the origin of man. If mankind evolved from the slime of the earth as the result of a completely random mixture of chemicals and elements, then he obviously has no Creator. If there is no Creator, then there is no endowment of rights and the Declaration’s assertion that “all men are created equal” and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” is meaningless. If man has no rights that pre-date government, then any rights we may have are not unalienable and we are simply at the mercy of government.

Moreover, the whole scope and purpose of government is changed. If there are no endowed rights that precede government, the Declaration’s assertion that the legitimate purpose of government is “to secure these rights” is also meaningless. Rather than deriving its power from the consent of the people for the purpose of protecting the people’s God-given rights, government becomes the originator of all rights and the grantor of all benefits and entitlements.

It is clear that the Founding Fathers agreed wholeheartedly with the Declaration’s assertion that we have a Creator whose law of human rights precedes and supersedes all laws of man and government. To believe anything else would deprive them of the firm basis for the form of government they designed: a government whose purpose was to protect their God-given rights and whose power is derived from the consent of the people. Sam Adams and James Otis wrote, “the right of freedom being the gift of God almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift.” They added, “There can be no prescription old enough to supersede the law of nature, and the grant of God almighty, who has given all men a natural right to be free ….”

Alexander Hamilton wrote, “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among parchments and musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” And Thomas Jefferson, the principle author of the Declaration, wrote that the sole basis for American freedom was the conviction among the people “that these liberties are the gift of God.”

Consequently, attacking those who believe that God created man extends well beyond an argument about the origins of life; it is also includes the origins of our government and the relationship between the people and the government as understood and intended by our Founding Fathers. The entire blueprint of the United States is based on a belief that God made man and that He endowed all men, regardless of their race or religion-or absence of religion-with unalienable rights. If man is nothing more than the result of millions of years of random processes, then there is no basis for our rights other than the dictates of whatever government happens to be in power.

If we are not God’s creation, then it is logical to conclude that every supposition for the purpose and scope of government as understood by our Founding Fathers is irrelevant and subject to repeal. If we, as a nation, no longer believe that our rights are endowed by our Creator, then those rights are not unalienable and we have no basis for complaint when federal bureaucrats or activist judges take them away.

In that regard, a politician’s belief about the origin of man could well be an insight into what they believe about our unalienable rights and the power of government over us. A recent Rasmussen poll indicated that 69 percent of Americans no longer believe our current government has the consent of the people to govern.

Consequently, the debate over the origin of man has a deep importance to our nation.

Gary Palmer is president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

The Palestinian Fiddle

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Palestinian issue is not a primary Middle East concern.

Pro-Western oil-producing Persian Gulf leaders are traumatized by the lethal Iranian nuclear threat, by a raging Arab Street of their own and by a potential Iraqi “earthquake” in the aftermath of the US evacuation. The pro-Western Hashemite regime is threatened by intensified discontent among its Bedouin power base; the Muslim Brotherhood hosted an anti-Western Arab
conference in Cairo on July 24-25, 2011; Strategically-critical Turkey is becoming more-Islamic and less-western; the pro-Western Moroccan monarchy is imperiled by the ripple effects of the Tunisian, Libyan and Egyptian turmoil; Islamic terrorism is gaining ground; Russia, China and North Korea are expanding their penetration into the Middle East and the US posture of deterrence is eroding substantially.

However, while the Middle East is burning – irrespective of the Palestinian issue, of the Arab-Israeli conflict or Israel’s policies and existence – the American and the European foreign policy establishments are playing the Palestinian fiddle. Their track record features the support of Khomeini and the betrayal of the Shah, the embrace of Saddam as a constructive force, the crowning of Arafat as a messenger of peace, the hailing of Bashar Assad as a moderate leader, the legitimization of Qadaffi as a reformed ruler and the idolizing of Mubarak as an Egyptian Rock of Gibraltar. They are convinced that the Palestinian issue is a root cause of Middle East turbulence and the crown jewel of Arab policy-making. Therefore, they assume that the resolution of the Palestinian issue – by pressuring Israel to yield Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians – would moderate the Middle East, would subside anti-Western terrorism, would appease the Arabs, would enhance Western ties with Arab countries and would facilitate a Western-Arab coalition against Iran.

But, such foreign policy assumptions are invalidated by the real Middle East, which highlights the root causes of regional turbulence: inherent fragmentation, instability, unpredictability, volatility, violence, terrorism, hate education and tenuous policies, commitments and alliances. None of these 1,400 year old root causes is related to the less than 100 year old Palestinian issue.

Arab leaders have never considered the Palestinian issue their prime concern, but an intra-Arab tool and a pawn against Israel. They are aware of the subversive and treacherous history of the Arafat-Abu Mazen wing of the Palestinians, which was therefore expelled from Egypt in the late 1950s, from Syria in 1966, from Jordan in 1970, from Lebanon in 1982 and from Kuwait in 1991.

Thus, Arab leaders marshal their rhetoric, but not their resources, on behalf of Palestinians. For example, during the October 2010 Arab Summit in Libya, Arab leaders pledged $500MN to the Palestinian – only seven percent was ever delivered. More than $2 billion were pledged by the Arabs in support of the first and second Palestinian Intifada against Israel, but less than $500 million reached the Palestinians. During the 1980s, Arab financial support of the PLO was less than 10% of Arab financial support of the anti-Soviet Muslims in Afghanistan.

Arab regimes did not actively support the PLO during its 1982 war (in Lebanon) against Israeli and they did not flex a significant muscle on behalf of the Palestinians during the 2008 war in Gaza. In fact, this has been the Arab attitude toward the Palestinian issue since 1948, irrespective
of the identity of the Palestinian leader: Haj Amin al-Husseini, Shukeiri, Hammuda, Arafat, Abu Mazen or Haniyeh.

The Red Carpet, which welcomes Palestinian leaders in the West, is transformed into a shabby rug upon landing in Arab capitals. What do Arab regimes know about the Palestinian issue that Western policy makers do not know or understand?!

The Problem of Sleep Deprivation

By Daniel Downs

Sleep is one of those human behaviors most necessary to human health. Sure, eating nutritious food, drinking plenty of water, and avoiding being killed are among the top three health practices. Sleep follows them is a strong fourth place.

There are many reasons people do not get enough sleep. A few that come to mind are worry, watching violent or other emotion heightening programs, eating too spicy or salty food before going to bed, conjugal relations while in bed, etc. Oh, yes, another is noise making people in one’s own home or people in the neighborhood.

Whatever the cause of sleep deprivation, the long-term problem arising from not getting enough sleep includes poor workmanship, sickness, and even death. All of which may contribute to the unemployment rate, increased costs of government, and family dysfunction.

There are several reasons why too little sleep too often over too long a period will result in ill health or death. When we are awake and active, our brains are consuming the largest share of our body’s available energy. But, when we are asleep, our body (muscular system, organs, and brain are consuming less energy, which allows more energy to be available for cellular reproduction and repair. That is why we all feel so much better after a good night’s sleep. Another reason is with an inefficiently operating cellular system cellular break down, genetic mutations, replication errors, or immune system dysfunction are more likely, which lead to ill health and even death.

It is one thing for people to choose not to get enough sleep, but it is wrong to intentionally prevent others from sleeping, except in the case of some perceived emergency or the like. History shows many examples of public officials and civilians alike seeking to harm dissenters or others by through sleep deprivation.

The regimes of Stalin and Lennon used this torture tactic in order to break-down dissenters in Siberian prison camps. The goal was to force dissenters into revealing the names of comrades, their addresses, and their plans as well as brainwashing them into accepting the regime.

Military officers captured by the North Vietnamese were often prevented from sleeping in the attempt to force them into confessions beyond name, rank and serial number. The mind and will of some officers did break and they did tell their captors what they knew about U.S. military operations and plans.

Domestically, Jews were often harassed in the middle of the night by disgruntled non-Jews while Americans were embracing Nazism and other forms of fascism during the 1930s and 1940s. The same was true of emancipated Negroes both during and after the eras of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr. After 911, American Muslims most likely experienced the same thing.

Today, news reports indicate that sleep deprivation is epidemic in America. No doubt some of the problem is the American lifestyle; other contributing factors include the demands of children, worry over finances, and the like. Yet, there still are some Americans intent on keeping neighbors and even members of their own households from sleeping in the attempt to harm them. Not out of a sense of self-defense or possible fear of harm, but because of some jealousy, prejudice, cultural or other difference, or simply because of they simply dislike the other. Where it occurs, justice demands its end.

Common Sense Transcends Circumstance

By Cameron Smith

This Fourth of July, as we celebrate our nation’s independence with flags and sparklers, families and friends will gather together, and many will fail to reflect on the importance of this celebration.

When the Revolutionary War began, many of the colonists opposed independence from Great Britain. In a very real sense, the Founding Fathers were considered radicals by their fellow countrymen. Without changing the hearts and minds of the colonists, these revolutionaries risked losing everything and vanishing into the history books largely unnoticed.

During the early part of 1776, Thomas Paine’s pamphlet, Common Sense, lit the spark that would ignite the push for independence and ultimately change the colonial culture. Common Sense aggressively challenged the control of the British Government and the merits of the monarchy. Paine’s plain language and direct approach were met with immediate success. About 120,000 copies were sold in the first three months and 500,000 in the first year and Paine donated the royalties to support the Continental Army. Arguably, without Paine’s “treasonous” pamphlet, American independence might well have been delayed or extinguished. John Adams claimed, “[w]ithout the pen of the author of ‘Common Sense’,” the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.”

But is Common Sense still a relevant factor in modern American government? At the inception of independence, there was virtually no federal government. Today, with a multitrillion dollar budget, more than 14 trillion dollars in debt, and more than 160,000 thousand pages of federal regulations, the government Americans live under is radically different that that experienced 235 years ago. Fortunately, Paine’s work is more than just a pleasant vestige of America’s historical past.

Common Sense resonated with the everyday man in his language, appealed to his values and gave him the goal of having a voice in his government. As the colonists recognized their increasing interest in independence, the willingness to fight for it grew as well. The colonial elites who sought to negotiate with Britain were quickly outpaced by those quite literally saying “liberty or death.”

Thanks to the electoral structures created by Paine and his peers, Americans need not revolt. But the percentage of Americans who did not even cast their vote in the most publicized Presidential election in recent history is shocking — forty-three percent of the current American population failed to vote in the 2008 presidential election. Moreover, less than 38 percent of the voting age population voted in the 2010 midterm election. Individual liberty and freedom from government without representation seems to be taken increasingly for granted and their erosion has gone progressively unnoticed. Americans witnessing this trend should readily relate to Paine’s calls for meaningful participation in government.

Unfortunately, the freedoms secured in the Revolution are no less fragile today than they were when first achieved. Executive agencies treat the Constitution as an antiquated suggestion while the judicial branch, through a radical reading of the Commerce Clause, is on the precipice of destroying the remaining vestiges of federalism and limited federal power. All this takes place while Congress piles mounds of generational debt upon our nation through a lack of fiscal discipline and political courage. These are not mere concerns of the politically active but viable threats to individual liberty and our founding notions of restrained government.

Common sense transcends circumstance and the passage of time. As our nation again celebrates its birth, Americans must consider their ability to participate in their own governance. These rights were created and protected by the blood of patriots and the sacrifice of their families. While reasonable minds may differ about specific policies, each generation must ask whether the current practices of government comport with their notions of common sense. Where the government fails to meet the expectations of the governed, each citizen owes those who have come before and those who will come after the duty to participate in the American democracy.

In justifying the need for the Revolutionary War, Thomas Jefferson stated that “[w]e cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them.” Whether that bondage comes in the form of an oppressive government, a legacy of debt or simply through a failure to teach the next generation about the price of liberty, this current generation must not ignore the real threats facing our nation.   (Emphasis by the editor)

Cameron Smith is General Counsel for the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Our Nation’s Birthday, Moment to Celebrate Democracy

By Congressman Sherrod Brown

Independence Day is an opportunity to commemorate the founding of our nation, as well as the promise that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights – not privileges.

Every American should have access to the tools needed to build a meaningful life.

Elementary students in Elyria deserve to learn from the latest text books. Grandparents in Grandview should never be forced to choose between buying medicine or a meal. And firefighters in Fairfield have earned the right to fight a fire with reliable, modern protective gear.

In a democracy, national priorities should reflect the needs of all citizens – not just the privileged.

Two hundred and thirty-five years after British subjects declared themselves United States citizens, Americans must continue the journey toward becoming a more perfect Union.

We’ve made tremendous strides in guaranteeing fundamental rights to education, health, and safety. Ohio established free, public education in 1825. Today – with the support of some $400 million in “Race to the Top Funds” – Ohio schools are working to build on proven models of success and to empower students with the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics skills needed to embark on 21st century careers.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, public health resources in Ohio were consumed by the fight against tuberculosis and the cholera epidemic. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, children can now remain on their parents’ health insurance until they reach 26 years of age. Seniors can receive annual wellness visits that will not only keep them healthier, but will also reduce costs by helping avoid illnesses. And we’re investing in preventive care and reforming our delivery system so that medical practitioners are rewarded for the outcome of their patients, not how many tests are ordered.

Public safety has also improved. In 1853, Cincinnati established the first fully-paid, professional fire department in the United States. It would take another decade for the first self-contained breathing apparatus to be invented. Today, professional firefighters can breathe safely while communicating with one another in a black, smoke-filled building.

Progress in our educational institutions, public health, and safety could not have happened without industrious Americans pushing for improvements. Time is not enough to usher in lasting change. It also takes human effort.

And, it is only with continued advocacy that we will be able to move closer to achieving a more perfect Union.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are easier to secure when everyone who wants to work has a job.

That is why America must reinvest in our most important industries. In Ohio, where agriculture remains our largest sector, we must continue to support small farmers and planters who deserve to carry on their family legacy of providing the food that feeds and fuels America.

Manufacturing is another critical industry for America – and our state. Ohio is home to more than 21,000 manufacturing companies. Three of the top twenty manufacturing cities in the U.S. are located in the Buckeye State. By establishing a National Manufacturing Policy – employed by so many industrialized countries – we can ensure that this vital industry remains strong in the 21st century and continues to lead our economic recovery.

We can ensure that Ohioans are equipped with the skills needed to fill good-paying, high-tech jobs. Legislation – like the Strengthening Employment Clusters to Organize Regional Success (SECTORS) Act, which I recently introduced ­– can create partnerships among community colleges, labor, workforce boards, and emerging industries to rejuvenate American manufacturing.

Yes, there are challenges to be met. But, as Americans, we also have a wealth of opportunities to do great things.

Since our founding, Ohio has been a state of vanguard achievements. Innovative Ohioans built the first successful airplane, invented the modern traffic signal, completed the first orbit of Earth by an American, and eight Ohioans have led as President of the United States.

Today’s schoolchildren, senior citizens, public servants, and all Americans have a role to play in creating the country our founders envisioned.

With common-sense legislation and concrete leadership, we can continue to honor our founders and achieve an even better future.

Thomas Jefferson, the American Mind and the Cosmic System

By John W. Whitehead

On May 26, 1776, John Adams, who represented Massachusetts at the Second Continental Congress, wrote exultantly to his friend James Warren that “every post and every day rolls in upon us independence like a torrent.” Adams had reason for rejoicing, for this was what he and others had hoped and worked for almost since the Congress had convened in May of the previous year. It helped, to be sure, that George III had proclaimed the colonies in rebellion and this encouraged the Americans to take him at his word. Later, George Washington proceeded to drive General Howe out of Boston. This demonstrated that Americans need not stand on the defensive, but could vindicate themselves in military strategy quite as well as in political.

However exciting to some, America was going through the difficult process of being born. In any event, the stage of history was being set. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia introduced three resolutions calling for independence, foreign alliances, and confederation. Some wanted unity and voted to postpone the final vote for three weeks. This allowed time for debate and for the hesitant and fainthearted to come over or step out. Meantime, Congress appointed a committee to prepare “a Declaration of Independence.” This committee consisted of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, and Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson had come to the Continental Congress the previous year, bringing with him a reputation for literature, science, and a talent for composition. His writings, said John Adams, “were remarkable for their peculiar felicity of expression.” In part because of his rhetorical gifts, in part because he already had a reputation of working quickly, in part because it was thought that Virginia, as the oldest, the largest, and the most deeply committed of the states, should take the lead, the committee unanimously turned to Jefferson to prepare a draft declaration.

We know a great deal about the composition of that draft. Jefferson wrote it standing at his desk (still preserved) in the second-floor parlor of a young German bricklayer named Graff, and he completed it in two weeks. We have his word for it that he “turned neither to book nor pamphlet” and that all the authority of the Declaration “rests on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc.” We can accept Jefferson’s statement made fifty years later that the object of the Declaration was to be “an appeal to the tribunal of the world”–that “decent respect to the opinions of Mankind” invoked in the Declaration itself. However, in Jefferson’s words (as he wrote to James Madison in 1823), it certainly was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of; not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.”

The Declaration of Independence, then, was an expression of the American mind that was prevalent in the colonies of that time. As Jefferson stated, the Declaration contained no new ideas, nor was there any originality in it on his part. He merely articulated what people of that day were thinking.

The basic elements of the American mind are set forth in the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration opens by stating:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands, which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The opening paragraph of the Declaration states that the colonists are impelled or required to separate from Great Britain for certain reasons:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This preamble sums up with lucidity, logic, and eloquence the philosophy which presided over the argument for the American Revolution, the creation of a new political system, and the vindication of the rights of man–all in less than two hundred words. Here we find expressed what is universal rather than parochial, what is permanent rather than transient, in the American Revolution. Where most of the body of the Declaration is retrospective, the preamble is prospective. In the years to come, it would be translated into the basic institutions of the American republic.

Consider the opening words of the Declaration: “When, in the Course of human events…” That places it, and the Revolution, at once in the appropriate setting, against the backdrop of not merely American or British but universal history. That connects it with the experience of people everywhere–not only at a moment in history, but in every era. This concept of the place of American history is underlined by successive phrases of the opening sentence. It points to a future of hope and optimism.

Thus, the new nation is to assume its place “among the powers of the earth.” It is not the laws of the British empire, or even of history, but of “Nature and of Nature’s God” which entitled Americans to an equal station. Moreover, it is “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” that requires this justification. No other political document of the eighteenth century proclaims so broad a purpose. No political document of our own day associates the United States so boldly with universal history in the cosmic system.

The American mind of the colonial period did not acknowledge a different order of truth, one for the lofty realms of mathematics, another for the more earthbound regions, and still another for society, politics, and the economy. While clearly discernible in the natural world, the cause of “Nature and of Nature’s God” applied equally to the world of politics and to the law. Benjamin Franklin, as a young man, said:

How exact and regular is everything in the natural World! How wisely in every part contriv’d. We cannot here find the least Defect. Those who have studied the mere animal and vegetable Creation demonstrate that nothing can be more harmonious and beautiful! All the heavenly bodies, the Stars and Planets, are regulated with the utmost Wisdom! And can we suppose less care to be taken in the Order of the Moral than in the natural System?

From such a God-ordered system, certain truths are self-evident. To Jefferson, these self-evident truths formed a total reality. He listed seven of them:

1. That all men are created equal;
2. That human beings are endowed by their Creator with “unalienable” rights;
3. That these rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
4. That it is to secure these rights that government is instituted among men;
5. That governments are instituted to derive their powers from the consent of the governed;
6. That when a form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it becomes illegitimate and a citizenry may alter or abolish it; and,
7. That people have the right, then, to institute new governments designed to effect their safety and happiness.
Continue reading