David Brooks, "The Vigorous Virtues": We Will Miss You, Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher died at age 87 on April 8. With respect to her passing, David Brooks writes in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Vigorous Virtues" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/opinion/brooks-the-vigorous-virtues.html):

"At a time when others were sliding toward moral relativism, Thatcher stood for individual responsibility, moral self-confidence and often, it has to be admitted, self-righteous certitude.

Put aside her personal failings, she was a militant optimist for a country slipping unconsciously toward defeatism. Beyond her policy decisions, she was part of a values shift."

Brooks does not mention Margaret Thatcher's enduring friendship for Israel. As noted by The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-leaders-praise-staunch-friend-margaret-thatcher/):

"Israeli leaders and legislators on Monday praised the deceased former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, speaking to her strong character and calling her a friend of the Jewish state.

. . . .

Thatcher 'was truly a great leader, a woman of principle, of determination, of conviction, of strength… a woman of greatness,' Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. 'She was a staunch friend of Israel and the Jewish people. She inspired a generation of political leaders. I send my most sincere condolences to her family and to the government and people of Great Britain.

President Shimon Peres also offered his condolences, calling Thatcher a 'friend,' and 'an exceptional leader.' In a statement, the president praised her 'strength of character,' saying 'she served as an inspiration for other leaders. As the first female prime minister of Great Britain, she broke new ground.' Thatcher represented 'vision,' the president said, noting that Thatcher was a culmination of 'people' and 'ideas.'"

As observed by Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/margaret-thatcher-the-british-pm-who-praised-israel-s-pioneer-spirit.premium-1.514374):

"But her friendship with the Jewish people cannot be doubted. Once, when asked of her most significant achievement, she said that it was persuading her father Alfred Roberts to help finance the immigration of her sister's pen-pal, 17 year-old Edith Muhlbauer from Austria, following the Nazi takeover in 1938. The Thatcher sisters helped raise the money and convinced families in Grantham to host Edith who, when she arrived, told the 12 year-old Margaret of life under the Nazis. The young girl would say nearly six decades later that she had learned, 'never hesitate to do whatever you can, for you may save a life.'"

Margaret Thatcher, we will miss you, now and forever.

The Ongoing Zakaria/Hiatt/Washington Post Saga

Here is my response to Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, e-mailed on April 8, regarding Fareed Zakaria's prevarication (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/fred-hiatt-editorial-page-editor-of.html):

Dear Mr. Hiatt,

I have not heard back from you.

I went to the trouble of providing you with an undisputed factual description of the Israeli/Palestinian negotiations in 2008, refuting Zakaria's fabrication that Israel has not "offered" the Palestinians "a state for 40 years." Is it still your contention that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's offer to Abbas of a state, including East Jerusalem, was not an "offer"? Sure, the Palestinians also wanted the Israeli settlements of Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim and were not ready to accept a "swap" of other Israeli territory for these settlements, but an offer was made.

Do you prefer to continue to hide behind the platitude that the "history of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is contentious"?

Okay, you don't want to embarrass Zakaria, a plagiarist. But at a minimum, it would be "nice" if someone at your newspaper were to write back and say, "Yes, Jeffrey, you have a point, and we will consider publishing a rebuttal."

But heck, this is 2013, and why should undisputed facts, as acknowledged by both The New York Times and al Jazeera, get in the way of Zakaria's opinions?

And why should you go to the trouble of responding in a meaningful way to an undisputed factual recital of events in 2008 from a Washington Post reader?

Jeffrey

Meanwhile, this abysmal conduct on the part of The Washington Post is described by Jonathan Tobin in Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/04/08/no-accountability-for-fareed-zakaria-fiction-israel-palestinians/#more-822160).

Hiatt has yet to respond to my April 8 message.

Paul Krugman, "Insurance and Freedom": California's Next Earthquake

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Insurance and Freedom" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/opinion/krugman-insurance-and-freedom.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman writes regarding Obamacare:

"In fact, it’s hard to think of a proposition that has been more thoroughly refuted by history than the notion that social insurance undermines a free society. Almost 70 years have passed since Friedrich Hayek predicted (or at any rate was understood by his admirers to predict) that Britain’s welfare state would put the nation on the slippery slope to Stalinism; 45 years have passed since Medicare went into effect; as far as most of us can tell, freedom hasn’t died on either side of the Atlantic."

I agree with Krugman: Social insurance in and of itself does not undermine a free society. On the other hand, social insurance that bankrupts state governments and causes the federal deficit to spiral out of control can result in collapse.

As reported by The Huffington Post in a recent article entitled "Obamacare Will Cause Medical Claims Costs To Jump 32 Percent: Study" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/obamacare-medical-claims-costs_n_2956986.html):

"Insurance companies will have to pay out an average of 32 percent more for medical claims on individual health policies under President Barack Obama's overhaul, the nation's leading group of financial risk analysts has estimated.

. . . .

The report by the Society of Actuaries could turn into a big headache for the Obama administration at a time when many parts of the country remain skeptical about the Affordable Care Act.

While some states will see medical claims costs per person decline, the report concluded the overwhelming majority will see double-digit increases in their individual health insurance markets, where people purchase coverage directly from insurers.

The disparities are striking. By 2017, the estimated increase would be 62 percent for California, about 80 percent for Ohio, more than 20 percent for Florida and 67 percent for Maryland. Much of the reason for the higher claims costs is that sicker people are expected to join the pool, the report said."

A 62 percent increase for California? And only a week ago, Krugman was telling us that California was poised for a comeback (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/03/paul-krugman-lessons-from-comeback.html). Instead, it will be facing a different kind of earthquake, destined to put paid to any kind of would-be comeback.

Another Failed Round of "Negotiations" Between Iran and the P5+1

As reported by Bloomberg in an article entitled "Iran Nuclear Talks Fail With No Resumption Date Given" (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-07/iran-nuclear-talks-fail-with-no-resumption-date-given.html):

"Iran and world powers failed to reach an accord on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program in talks that ended last night, dragging out a decade-long dispute that threatens to escalate with new sanctions or military threats against Iran."

JG Caesarea's response: Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Thomas Friedman, "How We’ve Wasted Our Timeout": The Eve of Destruction

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "How We’ve Wasted Our Timeout" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/opinion/sunday/friedman-weve-wasted-our-timeout.html), Thomas Friedman warns of an imminent Armageddon:

"But now, everywhere you turn, you see different actors standing with their toes on red lines, seemingly ready and willing, even itching, to cross them at any moment. North Korea’s boy king, Kim Jong-un, who seems totally off the grid, has ordered his strategic rocket forces to be on standby, ready to hit U.S. and South Korean targets at a moment’s notice. Which is why you see the South Koreans starting to wonder aloud whether they should stay on this side of the red line and not be building their own nuclear bomb. Iran is also steadily getting closer to a similar combination of a homemade nuclear weapon and delivery system, and so far no sanctions have deterred Tehran. Meanwhile, Egypt is running out of money to buy bread for its people and is perilously close to crossing the red line into failed-state status, which would destabilize the whole region. At the same time, Syria’s mad leader, Bashar al-Assad, having been given the choice of 'rule or ruin,' has chosen ruin for his country, which is also approaching state collapse, raising the prospect of jihadist militias picking through the rubble to obtain chemical weapons and sophisticated surface-to-air missiles — with no adult supervision."

Tom's right - The world has become increasingly fraught with danger over the past four years. Obama has engaged in meaningless negotiations involving Tehran's nuclear weapons development program, while dissing Egypt's Mubarak in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood. Meanwhile, in order to face these looming threats, he has appointed John Kerry, who labeled Assad his "dear friend," as secretary of state, and made Chuck Hagel, who agreed that America is the "world's bully," his secretary of defense.

Thanks to Barry - only the Pillsbury Doughboy is more feared by the world's tyrants and despots - we may indeed be on the eve of destruction, yet Friedman still manages some abject ass-kissing:

"Kudos to President Obama for still trying for a Grand Bargain."

A leopard cannot change its spots.

Maureen Dowd, "Can We Get Hillary Without the Foolery?": When Did Hillary and Bill Last Spend a Night in Bed Together?

Yes, Hillary is running for president in 2016, and in case you didn't know, blueprints for a semi-detached "Monica Wing" of the White House are already being prepared by a leading Washington architectural firm.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Can We Get Hillary Without the Foolery?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/opinion/sunday/dowd-can-we-get-hillary-without-the-foolery.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), Maureen Dowd writes:

"As long as there are no more health scares — the thick glasses are gone — Hillary’s age won’t stop her. The Clinton scandals and dysfunction are in the rearview mirror at the moment, and the sluggish economy casts a halcyon glow on the Clinton era. Hillary is a symbol and a survivor, running on sainthood. Ronald Reagan, elected at 69, was seen as an 'ancient king' gliding through life, as an aide put it. Hillary, who would be elected at 69, would be seen as an ancient queen striding through life."

Sorry, but personally I've never been big on coronations. I'm also not one for smoke and mirrors.

The Clinton's farce of a marriage? Actually, I couldn't care less. In fact, I can't think of a better argument for same-sex marriage: If Hillary and Bill can be deemed a couple and file a joint return with the IRS, why shouldn't gays be afforded the same privilege?

But more to the point, in 2016 will America be seeking a coronation or competence, sainthood or solvency?

Dowd further observes:

"Hillary was an indefatigable secretary of state — she logged 956,733 diplomatic frequent-flier miles — and a star ambassador, especially on women’s issues. But many experts feel, as John Cassidy wrote in The New Yorker, that, compared with the work of more geopolitical secretaries, her 'signature achievements look like small beer.'"

"Small beer"? In fact, I think her accomplishments as secretary of state can be distilled down to her testy testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing regarding the Benghazi tragedy:

"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

Well, Americans should care why Hillary together with the rest of the Obama administration sought to attribute the deaths to a spontaneous demonstration having no connection to al-Qaeda. Yes, I know: "should care" doesn't mean that they "will care," given that many are too busy following the capers of the Kardashians.

But more to the point, there can be no ignoring Friday's dismal jobs report, which informed us that the "labor force participation rate has not been this low — 63.3 percent — since 1979, a time when women were less likely to be working" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/business/economy/us-adds-only-88000-jobs-jobless-rate-falls-to-7-6.html?_r=0). Can today's "sluggish economy" enable Hillary to bask in "a halcyon glow" from the high levels of employment that prevailed during her husband's presidency? That was many moons ago, and as once stated by Robert Louis Stevenson, "I've a grand memory for forgetting."

Dowd concludes:

"Her challenge is to get into the future and stay there, adding fresh people and perspectives and leaving the Clinton mishegoss and cheesiness in the past.

The real question about Hillary is this: When people take a new look at her in the coming years, will they see the past or the future — Mrs. Clinton or Madam President?"

"Mrs. Clinton or Madam President"? No matter what she wears, it will be difficult to disguise Hillary's core reptillian narcissism.

The real question is whether Republicans will nominate another clod, oblivious to changing demographics and societal trends, incapable of providing programs or answers.

Fred Hiatt, Editorial Page Editor of The Washington Post, Goes to Bat for Fareed Zakaria, Plagiarizer and Liar

As you will recall, I have repeatedly complained to The Washington Post concerning Fareed Zakaria's opinion piece entitled "Obama appeals to Israel's conscience," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-obama-appeals-to-israels-conscience/2013/03/27/a4365b18-96f5-11e2-b68f-dc5c4b47e519_story.html?hpid=z2) in which he falsely claimed:

"After all, Israel has ruled millions of Palestinians without offering them citizenship or a state for 40 years."

Of course, as well known to Zakaria, Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert offered Arafat and Abbas an independent state along the 1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps, and Olmert even offered Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. Arafat and Abbas refused.

After publication of my blog item on this topic yesterday (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/all-washington-posts-mice-fareed.html), Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of The Washington Post finally replied:

Dear Mr. Grossman,

The history of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is contentious and, as I’m sure you know, subject to widely differing interpretation. Mr. Zakaria’s statement is within the bounds of acceptable interpretation for an opinion columnist.

Thank you for your interest.

Fred Hiatt

"The history of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is contentious and, as I'm sure you know, subject to widely differing interpretation"? You don't say! Yes, I can indeed accept this vacuous platitude.

But "Mr. Zakaria's statement is within the bounds of acceptable interpretation for an opinion columnist"? Even the Palestinians are not contending that Israel did not offer them "a state for 40 years." Perhaps it can be claimed that Israeli offers did not meet Palestinian requirements or expectations, but no one - I repeat no one - can claim that offers were not made.

First, have a look at Bernard Avishai's February 2011 New York Times article entitled "A Plan for Peace That Still Could Be" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/magazine/13Israel-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&) in which Avishai writes:

A viable plan exists: it is waiting to be forged from the far-reaching proposals that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority made to each other in 2008. We had a glimpse in mid-January of these negotiations — the 'Palestine Papers,' leaked by Al Jazeera; and then excerpts from Ehud Olmert’s memoir, published in Israel.

. . . .

I spoke with Olmert this year in Jerusalem on the morning of Jan. 21, and that same evening with Abbas in Amman, Jordan. The leaders revealed in detail what was proposed, what was implicitly agreed, what the gaps were and what they suggested was susceptible to compromise.

. . . .

Olmert insisted that he had conceded to Abbas every major demand Palestinians had made for decades: a border based scrupulously on the 1967 lines, a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem and 'recognition of the problem' of refugees.

. . . .

Even on borders, Olmert and Abbas were able to agree on fundamentals: a desire to disrupt as few lives as possible and to maximize the contiguity (and therefore the economic possibility) of Palestinian cities. "We didn’t waste a minute during our months of negotiation," Abbas said.

Where bridging proposals seemed most called for was over the extent and nature of land to be swapped — in effect, the fate of specific large Israeli settlements. The Israeli position, where it diverged from the Palestinian, was not about principle but focused primarily on the practical matter of how many (often violent) settlers the Israeli government would have to force back behind the Green Line.

. . . .

Olmert’s security principles were the following: Palestine would have a strong police force, "everything needed for law enforcement." It would have no army or air force. The Palestinian border with Jordan, through which missiles and heavy armaments might be smuggled, would be patrolled by international forces, probably from NATO.

. . . .

So when Olmert finally showed Abbas his map on Sept. 16, it was an established principle of these negotiations that any territory Israel sought to annex in Greater Jerusalem would have to be compensated like any other occupied territory. This was unprecedented. Olmert held that the no man’s land also be divided 50-50, with Israel understandably taking more around its highway and ceding more in other areas, but this slight divergence from Rice’s definition was of no great consequence. 'I told Abbas this land had never been used, so the only reasonable thing was to divide it,” Olmert said. "He seemed quite happy with it."

The real issue in contention, however, was which Israeli settlements would be permitted to stay, and which would have to be removed.

. . . .

Olmert, for his part, was presenting a plan in which the most sparsely populated settlements would be evacuated, but Efrat (extending from Gush Etzion), Maale Adummim (a town just east of Jerusalem) and Ariel, a town of 18,000 between Ramallah and Nablus, should be permitted to stay.

. . . .

"I told him, 'Sign,'" Olmert said. "'You will never get a better proposal from any Israeli government for the next 50 years.'" Abbas would not sign.

. . . .

Olmert made his most comprehensive offer to Abbas on Sept. 16, 2008, the opening day of the General Assembly in New York.

Count the number of time that the words "offer," "plan," "proposed" and "proposal" appear above.

Concerning Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's earlier peace proposal providing the Palestinians with statehood, have a look at Sandy Tolan's 2011 article in al Jazeera entitled "Two-state solution: A postmortem" (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201121810588471977.html):

Like other such fictions - chief among them "Israel's generous offer" at Camp David in 2000 - this one is not entirely without substance. As the Palestine Papers show, the two sides did agree on various security arrangements, land swaps and some principles of the right of return, much to the alarm of many Palestinians. Just as significantly, Palestinian negotiators agreed to allow Israel to annex major settlement blocs in East Jerusalem - a fact that, in the wake of the document dump, is eroding what is left of Abbas' credibility among his own people.

. . . .

The US has long been hypersensitive to Israeli domestic political considerations while ignoring those of the Palestinians and the broader Arab and Muslim worlds. In 2000, Yasser Arafat turned down Israel's "generous offer," refusing to agree to a "sovereign presidential compound" in the Old City - essentially, a golden cage near the Muslim holy sites.

Again, it can be claimed that Israeli offers in 2000 did not meet Palestinian requirements or expectations, i.e. were insufficiently "generous,"but no one - I repeat no one - can claim that offers were not made.

Sorry, Mr. Hiatt, but Zakaria's fabrication does not fall "within the bounds of acceptable interpretation for an opinion columnist" or any other serious journalist for that matter.

[See my follow-up e-mail to Fred Hiatt: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/the-ongoing-zakariahiattwashington-post.html]