It is a vicious cycle.
Hamas or one of its sister-terrorist organizations initiates a terror attack. Israel retaliates, most often by bombing empty structures; the terrorists respond with rockets aimed at the Israeli civilian population; Israel retaliates, then threatens critical punishment. Hamas declares ceasefire and Israel concurs. And then—a replay of the same episode. Something is awfully wrong with this picture. Hamas is the one calling the shots. They initiate, then terminate cycles of violence when the heat rises in their kitchen, making them sweat. And the Israeli government’s policies of retaliations constituting measured responses appear impotently reactive in the face of the Gaza terror machine. In fact, Israeli passive policies of measured responses, supplemented by empty threats concerning the endgame, provide a strong incentive for another round whenever these blood-thirsty terrorists feel dehydrated. What’s more, ceasefires declared by Hamas are not genuine ceasefires. They are more like a seemingly-dormant volcano bound to erupt in a massive fireworks show at any given moment, while keeping on emitting small bursts of ash and Lava on a daily basis. If you reside next to that kind of predictable terror spurts and outbursts you are likely to develop a permanent anxiety disorder. It’s a dismal condition; it’s an intolerable circumstance. No one should be subject to that kind of living. Israel should end its policy of retaliation. Retaliation is an emotionally satisfying act that under nearly all circumstances serves as grounds for a counter act that fuels a vicious revenge cycle. It is analogous to inflicting a minor injury, a superficial gash, on an adversary, without causing a permanent disabling devastation that would put the bad guys out of business for good. As long as the enemy is able to stand up back on their feet and rebound, retaliation would only fire up their emotions, energize them, enhance their popularity among their peers, and transform their criminal acts to heroic martyrdom. A ceasefire brings comfort in the short run, but when Hamas is the one controlling its activation and its culmination, it only energizes and emboldens the terrorists. A Hamas-style ceasefire constitutes a wrong exit out of the recent violent flare-up. It’s time to think longer term; it’s time to take the initiative out of Hamas’s hands and refuse to concur with their unstable mood. Time has come for abolishing Retaliation and trading it for Eradication. Israel must put a stop, once and for all, to the constant challenge that the Palestinian terror organizations put through History has shown that a lasting peace following a bitter war has a better chance of success when the enemy is forced into an unconditional surrender. World War II, is the most recent example of this point. When wars do not end with the absolute defeat and surrender of the enemy, the peace, or the cease-fire that follows is unstable at best. The Arab Israeli wars are a preeminent example of that point. Settling on Eradication may yield a transitory resentment by those around the world who label themselves as ‘civilized’. They may complain that such actions are too harsh, that innocent lives get caught in the cross-fire, and that this is not a measured response. But the outcome and its associated benefits would be more permanent, and would last long after the memory of the global fury has been faded away. The Israeli government should not wait for a disaster before ceasing the Retaliation policy and substituting it for a policy that affects Eradication. It must be a difficult decision for those who believe in measured responses. But if safety and security of Israeli citizens precedes the safety and security of its enemies, then the way for taking the vicious revenge cycle to an end is by opting for a policy that would make it happen. Biography Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network(PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks," and more recently, "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories distinguished staff member and manager, a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to UN International Standards body, a professor at Northwestern University and Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government. More information is available at www.aviperry.org
1 Comment
Recent events in Southern Israel have reinforced the notion that the Israeli government has been, for some time, putting a policy of retaliation into practice. Retaliation is an emotionally satisfying act that under nearly all circumstances serves as grounds for a counter act that fuels a vicious revenge cycle. It is analogous to inflicting a minor injury, a superficial gash, on an adversary, without causing a permanent disabling devastation that would put the bad guys out of business for good. As long as the enemy is able to stand up back on their feet and rebound, retaliation would only fire up their emotions, energize them, enhance their popularity among their peers, and transform their criminal acts to heroic martyrdom.
The recent escalation on the Hamastan border and the Israeli response has not quite eliminated Hamas’s and their partners’ ability to rebuild and repeat their acts of violence. Evidently, their leaders are already talking revenge. Palestinian terrorist organizations continue to launch rockets and the Israeli government continues to retaliate. It is evident that Hamas’s rocket technology has been improving, as they are able to hit farther and more accurately. Is Israel going to wait for a terrorist big bang before eradicating this cancer, or treat it with aspirin to make the temporary pain go away? There is no question. Iron Dome may not be able to stop 100% of incoming rockets. A war of attrition is advantageous to the enemy since the cost of a single Katyusha or Qassam rocket is miniscule in comparison to a single Iron Dome smart missile. And one day, one of those rockets would hit a sensitive target. This is only a matter of chance, and the odds against such an event are getting thinner. Time has come for abolishing Retaliation and trading it for Eradication. Israel must put a stop, once and for all, to the constant challenge that the Palestinian terror organizations put through. Settling on Eradication may yield a transitory resentment by those around the world who label themselves as ‘civilized’. They may complain that such actions are too harsh, that innocent lives get caught in the cross-fire, and that this is not a measured response. But the outcome and its associated benefits would be more permanent, and would last long after the memory of the global fury has faded away. History has shown that a lasting peace following a bitter war has a better chance of success when the enemy is forced into an unconditional surrender. World War II, is the most recent example of this point. When wars do not end with the absolute defeat and surrender of the enemy, the peace, or the cease-fire that follows is unstable at best. The Arab Israeli wars are the best example of that point. I do hope that the Israeli government does not wait for a disaster before ceasing the Retaliation policy and substituting it for a policy that affects Eradication. It must be a difficult decision for those who believe in measured responses. But if safety and security of Israeli citizens precedes the safety and security of its enemies, then the way for taking the vicious revenge cycle to an end is by opting for a policy that would make it happen. Bio Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network(PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks," and more recently, "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories distinguished staff member and manager, a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to UN International Standards body, a professor at Northwestern University and Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government. More information is available at www.aviperry.org You can blame it on the budget deficit; you can blame it on Congress’s inability to force a balanced budget, but these are simply lame excuses designed to lay a smoke screen around the truth. The real reason for the S&P downgrade of US treasuries is the mere existence of a debt ceiling.
There is no dependence between the lifting of the debt ceiling and the budget deficit. The American government must honor its obligations regardless of the budget deficit’s size. The debt ceiling should be eliminated, since each and every time we approach it, we realize that we have no choice but to raise it yet again. Government spending must be conducted responsibly with an eye on the size of the deficit regardless of the existence or the absence of a debt ceiling. The mere existence of a debt ceiling serves as a warning to creditors that some economically ignorant politicians may decide to hold it hostage or even activate it, should their demands be slighted. It’s the only reason for the lack of AAA confidence in the US ability to fulfill its financial obligations. Had their demands failed to materialize, the Republican led Tea Party indicated that it was willing to default on US government’s obligation by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. The world was watching in horror as the Republicans took the American and the world’s economy hostage, held a gun to its head and threatened to kill it. It becomes problematic for a lender to feel that his money is safe at the hands of lunatics who have the ability to pay, but may refuse to honor their obligations, merely because they feel constipated. One of conservatives’ favorite talking points these days is that the U.S. is going to end up like Greece if we don’t do something drastic. This statement ignores some basic realities. Greece’s economy is small and relatively insignificant compared to the US economy. Unlike the US, Greece’s debt is not in its own currency. In fact, Greece doesn’t even have its own currency. Unlike the US, Greece’s fiscal and monetary policies are not coordinated because Greece has no control over its monetary policy. The US can prevent defaulting on its own debt unless it chooses otherwise. All real economists are in the opinion that a country can always pay its debt when the debt is in its own currency. It can simply print more money and devalue its currency and its debt in the process. In spite of the Great Recession the US has a vibrant economy. Its production capacity, innovative atmosphere and capital levels, are unmatched in the world. Not a single person can say that about Greece. If we are looking for a red alert, a sounding of an alarm bell drawing our attention to an unacceptable deficit situation, then the value of the dollar relative to the price of US treasuries is a much preferred distress signal. As long as the world markets are willing to invest in US treasuries, they display confidence in the US financial strength and in the value of the dollar. If the dollar goes down in value faster than the price of US treasuries, then buying treasuries is a bad investment. The present situation is the reverse of this indicator; therefore we have not yet crossed the threshold of unacceptable of debt. The world's financial speculators are still willing to invest and hold US treasuries. They vote with their money. We do not need a balanced budget amendment. A balanced budget means that government expenditures must be equal to its revenues. Moreover, it implies that the government’s borrowing should be curbed because selling treasury bonds enables it to spend over and above its revenue. And in spite of some loud rhetoric by conservatives, most responsible individuals and businesses, do not balance their budgets in the space of a single year. Living within one’s means does not require that person or business to balance income versus expenses. Most of us sign in on a mortgage when buying our homes, take student loans, finance the purchase of a new car or incur some other form of debt to enable investments and other capital intensive purchases. Businesses sell stocks and bonds to support growth, investments and expenses exceeding their current income. In short, most people and businesses use leverage to facilitate growth, investments and expenses. They all balance their budget eventually, once loans are fully paid. Except they do so over a long period of time rather than within a single year as proposed by the Congressional Republicans’ balanced budget amendment. Under a balanced budget amendment Government may be paralyzed at times of emergencies when it’s most needed. It will not be able to act quickly and decisively during unforeseen events like natural disasters such as Katrina, man-made disasters such as wars, or economic calamities such as the collapse of the auto industry, the breakdown of the financial sector or both. History has demonstrated that attempts to balance the budget during an economic depression caused more harm than good, and the damage was not confined to the short term. There is no need for a balanced budget amendment, especially now, when the economy is sluggish and unemployment is high. Shocking the economy at this point by forcing massive budgetary cuts in the short term is insane, unless policy makers are nostalgic about the great depression and feel like living through a greater one. A cyclically balanced budget was first proposed by the biblical Joseph who argued that government should create a budget (food) surplus in (the next seven) boom years to cover for a budget deficit in (the next seven) lean years. He applied the Keynesian economic model (thousands of years before Keynes was born) of an active government fiscal policy designed to smooth and level economic cycles by providing restrains (in the form of higher taxes and spending cuts) in boom years, while growing government expenditures and lowering taxes during recessions. Joseph was proved right. He saved Egypt (including his own brothers) from mass starvation. Bio Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks," and more recently, "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories -distinguished staff member and manager, a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to the ITU—the UN International Standards body in Geneva, a professor at Northwestern University and Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government In the wake of the S&P downgrade of US debt, there have been claims and counter claims as to why it happened, who was responsible and what could be done to remedy the situation. Many of the claims deserve a closer look, as the truth of the matter must be addressed and exposed for what it is.
The lies and the distortions spread by those who opposed the lifting of the debt ceiling must be addressed and exposed for what it is—dirty politics wrapped in a baseless ideology. The following is an incomplete list of myths and facts concerning the US economy and the implications associated with the debt, the deficit and the role of the government. Myth The Debt Ceiling (I call it—the Death Ceiling) is conditioned upon a bi-partisan agreement on lowering or balancing the US Government budget. Fact There is no dependence between the lifting of the debt ceiling and the budget deficit. In fact, it is my strong opinion that there should be no debt ceiling at all. The American government must honor its obligations regardless of the budget deficit’s size. The debt ceiling should be eliminated, since each and every time we approach it, we realize that we have no choice but to raise it yet again. Government spending must be conducted responsibly with an eye on the size of the deficit regardless of the existence or the absence of a debt ceiling. If the ceiling is not lifted or eliminated altogether, the US will bring about a self-inflicted long-term disaster on its economy and on its economic dominance in the world while drowning the rest of the world in the process. Myth The debt ceiling is the best red alert or braking system on the continuing irresponsible spending by the US government Fact The mere existence of a debt ceiling serves as a warning to creditors that some economically ignorant politicians may decide to hold it hostage or even trigger it, should their demands be slighted. It’s the only reason for the lack of AAA confidence in the US ability to fulfill its financial obligations. The value of the dollar relative to the price of US treasuries is a much preferred index. As long as the world markets are willing to invest in US treasuries, they display confidence in the US financial strength and in the value of the dollar. If the dollar goes down in value faster than the price of US treasuries, then buying treasuries is a bad investment. The present situation is the reverse of this indicator; therefore we have not yet crossed the threshold of unacceptable of debt. The world's financial speculators are still willing to invest and hold US treasuries. They vote with their money. Myth Recently, the rhetoric made use of the term “job creators” when referring to the rich. Is it the proper term or is it misleading? Fact The real job creators are the consumers. The boss will hire more workers if present business capacity is unable to fully satisfy consumers’ demand for goods and services. The boss will lay off employees if business capacity exceeds consumers’ demand. Taxes have little to do with hiring or firing of employees. The bosses do not create jobs. In their attempts to maximize their profit they act to satisfy demand in response to the real job creators—the customers. What we need right now is a “Demand-Side” economic policy. Myth The budget deficit is a job killing apparatus. Fact The only condition under which the above myth becomes true is when the budget deficit prevents government from spending more on job creations. During high unemployment, government spending cuts bring about job cuts and a reduction in the number of taxpayers. One of the main reasons for the larger deficit is the great recession, the high unemployment, and the government reluctance to grow the deficit in favor of job creations. Myth The US needs a Balanced Budget amendment to the constitution. Government must act like responsible individuals and businesses, who balance their budgets and live within their means Fact A balanced budget means that government expenditures must be equal to its revenues. Moreover, it implies that the government’s borrowing should be curbed because selling treasury bonds enables it to spend over and above its revenue. This myth is ironic. Living within one’s means does not require that person or business to balance income versus expenses. Most of us sign in on a mortgage when buying our homes, take student loans, finance the purchase of a new car or incur some other form of debt to enable investments and other capital intensive purchases. Businesses sell stocks and bonds to support growth, investments and expenses exceeding their current income. In short, most people and businesses use leverage to facilitate growth, investments and expenses. They all balance their budget eventually, once loans are fully paid. Except they do so over a long period of time rather than within a single year as proposed by the Congressional Republicans’ balanced budget amendment. Under a balanced budget amendment Government may be paralyzed at times of emergencies when it’s most needed. It will not be able to act quickly and decisively during unforeseen events like natural disasters such as Katrina, man-made disasters such as wars, or economic calamities such as the collapse of the auto industry, the breakdown of the financial sector or both. History has demonstrated that attempts to balance the budget during an economic depression caused more harm than good, and the damage was not confined to the short term. There is no need for a balanced budget amendment, especially now, when the economy is sluggish and unemployment is high. Shocking the economy at this point by forcing massive budgetary cuts in the short term is insane, unless policy makers are nostalgic about the great depression and feel like living through a greater one. A cyclically balanced budget was first proposed by the biblical Joseph who argued that government should create a budget (food) surplus in (the next seven) boom years to cover for a budget deficit in (the next seven) lean years. He applied the Keynesian economic model (thousands of years before Keynes was born) of an active government fiscal policy designed to smooth and level economic cycles by providing restrains (in the form of higher taxes and spending cuts) in boom years, while growing government expenditures and lowering taxes during recessions. Joseph was proved right. He saved Egypt (including his own brothers) from mass starvation. Myth Taxes are too high in the US Fact Taxes are the lowest they have ever been. Income tax payments this year will be nearly 13% lower than in 2008—the last full year of the Bush presidency. The poor economy is largely to blame for the low tax rate, but the tax code is not an innocent bystander either. It grows each year with new deductions, credits and exemptions. Both rich and poor pay significantly less than they did in the past. Myth Supply Side Economics is what America needs. Fact The Supply Side concept is that lower tax rates would provide strong incentives to earn more income, and as a consequence tax revenues would go up. The theory works when marginal taxes are very high. The idea does not work when the marginal tax rate is as low as it is now. There are historical proofs to that fact. Tax cuts in 1980 and in 2000 did not work as advertised. The 1980 tax cut did, however, raise more tax revenue from the highest tax bracket, but the theory failed at the lower ones. The 2000 tax cut reduced revenue in all brackets. Most economists agree that the major US companies are sitting on piles of cash, not willing to invest, hire, or use it for growing their business. There is lack of consumers’ demand required to justify any form of expansion. It’s not the supply side that one needs to worry about these days. It’s the weakness presented by the demand side that prevents economic growth in the US. Myth Government does not create jobs. Fact There are two main roles the government plays in the economy. It is the largest employer of the American workforce in addition to being the private sector’s most significant customer. As of March, 2009 Total Federal government employees amounted to over 2.8 million people with monthly payroll exceeding $15 Billion, not including the armed forces. The number of state and local employees was equal to over 5.3 million with payroll for that month equal to a figure exceeding $19.3 Billion. Government purchases of goods and services including healthcare, education and defense in 2010 amounted to $2.764 Trillion. The figure does not include expenditures for pensions, welfare and interest payments. Government expenditures are directly responsible for spawning millions of jobs in the private sector. Government expenditures for pensions, welfare and interest provide an indirect stimulus, offsetting some of the counter-stimulus tax burden. Myth The US Economy is like the Greek Economy Fact One of conservatives’ favorite talking points these days is that the U.S. is going to end up like Greece if we don’t do something drastic. This statement ignores some basic realities. Greece’s economy is small and relatively insignificant compared to the US economy. Unlike the US, Greece’s debt is not in its own currency. In fact, Greece doesn’t even have its own currency. Unlike the US, Greece’s fiscal and monetary policies are not coordinated because Greece has no control over its monetary policy. The US can prevent defaulting on its own debt unless it chooses otherwise. All real economists are in the opinion that a country can always pay its debt when the debt is in its own currency. It can simply print more money and devalue its currency and its debt in the process. In spite of the Great Recession the US has a vibrant economy. Its production capacity, innovative atmosphere and capital levels, are unmatched in the world. Not a single person can say that about Greece. Myth The Obama/Bernanke bailouts have been wrong and ineffective Fact TARP— the Troubled Assets Relief Program, created in October 2008 at the height of the financial crisis has been one of the most prominent success stories of the great recession. Not only most of the $410 billion (out of the authorized $700 billion) is being paid back, but it did hit the brakes on the down spiral of the economy following the Lehman Brothers’ collapse. Real economists agree that without TARP and the massive quantitative easing (QE) by the Federal Reserve unemployment could have risen to levels matching or even exceeding the levels of the Great Depression. It is a fact that proper government economic policies have been directly responsible for 9.1% unemployment. This figure is high compared to an ideal level, but it is very low in comparison to what it could have been had TARP failed to materialize. Without TARP the American auto industry would have disappeared forever, taking with it all supporting industries and a great deal of the American manufacturing base. Without TARP banks would have failed, AIG would have failed, taking with them numerous industries, shrinking the money supply to a bottom that prevents any economic recovery while sinking the rest of the US to levels equivalent or lower than levels experienced during the Great Depression. Claiming that TARP has weakened the economy is like claiming that the CIA (rather than al Qaeda) flew airplanes into the World Trade Center. Go figure… Myth The Obama Administration created the largest budget deficit ever Fact This statement is actually true, but it fails to deliver an authentic picture. The Obama Administration had no choice but to save a troubled economy and to support the troops in two wars it inherited. The Administration shouldn’t be blamed for trying to get the economy out of the ditch; it had no choice. And given the circumstances, it was the right thing to do. Myth The next generation will have to pay for the present government spending spree. Fact True but distorted. The next generation would have paid much more if unemployment and underemployment reached levels of the Great Depression since parents would not have been able to invest in their children’s future. Government spending is not the only reason for the largest US budget deficit ever. The Bush tax cut is clearly a contributing factor. Still, tax cuts and greater levels of government spending were preferred to balancing the budget during the Great Recession. Running a budget deficit has been a better choice than sliding down the cliff the US was staring at, following the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Had the US slide into a great depression by cutting on government spending following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the next generation would have paid more by being deprived of opportunities to invest in self-growth such as education, business, and health care. Myth Balancing the budget can only be accomplished by reducing spending rather than raising revenue since there is a need to transfer more resources to the private sector away from the government. Fact As I have argued earlier, there is no evidence favoring Supply-Side Economics. Accordingly, there is no proof that the private sector can, on its own, lift the economy out of the ditch. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. The private sector is frozen due to lack of demand. The only force that could jump start the economy at this point is an economic force not motivated by profit. Businesses will not invest and will not hire unless they see evidence of renewed economic activity justifying new spending. If we depend on the private sector to jump start the economy we must provide it with a compelling reason. In the absence of one, the recession will only get worse since leaving it unchecked will only cause it to feed upon itself, spiral down the cliff to levels of a Great Depression. Ubiquitous absence of demand generates more of the same, more layoffs, more depression. The statement above is true only when the economy is healthy, when it fires on all cylinders at full force, when it benefits from full employment. In times of high unemployment when so many resources are unutilized, pulling resources out of an idle pool does not deprive the private sector. On the contrary, it spawns new job creators—more working consumers who are willing and eager to spend their earned income on goods and services produced by the private sector. Myth Raising the debt ceiling is a Democrat’s Socialist’s idea Fact When president Obama was a senator, and when Bush was president. Obama objected to raising the debt ceiling. When President Reagan faced the same issue he argued that “Unfortunately, Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility—two things that set us apart from much of the world.” Would you still argue that it’s a democrat’s idea consistent with a tax and spend policy? Myth Conservatives have accused the Obama Administration for following the Keynesian policy of Tax and Spend. Is it really what Keynes advocated? Fact Keynes advocated an active fiscal policy by the government to balance and repair the economic conditions. In fact, he believed in increasing taxes and reducing spending in times of inflationary pressures while reducing taxes and increasing spending in times of high unemployment. This is the opposite of a straight tax and spends policy. Myth There is a serious risk of default by the US government if the long term debt is not reduced Fact Not true! There are no economic scenarios other than self-inflicted political ones, which could prevent the US from tending to its financial obligations. All real economists (including Alan Greenspan) are in the opinion that a country can always pay its debt when the debt is in its own currency. It can simply print more money and devalue its currency and its debt in the process. Myth S&P downgrade of the American credit rating is due to the growing US government’s budget deficit Fact Credit rating is a reflection or an assessment of the borrower’s probability of default. S&P downgraded the American credit rating because the risk of default on US government obligations has increased substantially due to the dysfunctional political environment in Washington. The US can always pay its debt and fulfill its financial obligations unless politics rather than economics prevent it from doing so. The probability of an American default on its government financial obligations has been shown to be positive due to the Tea Party’s suicidal declaration concerning their willingness to default should their demands be passed over. Myth The S&P downgrade of the American credit rating has taken place under Obama’s watch. Consequently, it’s all Obama’s fault. Fact Had their demands failed to materialize, the Republican led Tea Party indicated that it was willing to default on US government’s obligation by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. The world was watching in horror as the Republicans took the American and the world’s economy hostage, held a gun to its head and threatened to kill it. It becomes problematic for a lender to feel that his money is safe at the hands of lunatics who may refuse to honor their future obligations even if they have the ability to pay. Myth The Tea Party is solely responsible for the S&P downgrade of the American credit rating Fact Obama’s poor negotiating ability is partially responsible for the debt ceiling crisis. The president bought into the Republican strategy of linking the lifting of the debt ceiling to the budget deficit reduction. In fact, he kept reinforcing that false notion by stating his refusal to using the 14th amendment. He brought a knife to a gun fight; he should have threatened to raise or eliminate the debt ceiling regardless of the Republican’s position on the budget deficit. Had he done so, he would have eliminated the threat of default; he would have taken the extortion power away from the Tea Party by amputating the hand holding the gun to the US economy’s head. And he would have emerged a winner out of the budget deficit debate. Obama should have made clear that he had not agreed to acknowledge any dependence between the lifting of the debt ceiling and the budget deficit. He should have tried to rip the debt ceiling to shreds, knock it down altogether. He should have made clear that the American government must honor its obligations regardless of the budget deficit’s size, since each and every time we approach it, we realize that we have no choice but to raise it yet again. Government spending must be conducted responsibly with an eye on the size of the deficit regardless of the existence or the absence of a debt ceiling. The US is the only country in the world, which has a limiting debt ceiling (Denmark has one, but it is much too high in comparison to its budget, making it irrelevant). Having an arbitrary debt ceiling is the only reason the US credit rating comes into question. Fact A balanced budget means that government expenditures must be equal to its revenues. Moreover, it implies that the government’s borrowing should be curbed because selling treasury bonds enables it to spend over and above its revenue. This myth is ironic. Living within one’s means does not require that person or business to balance income versus expenses. Most of us sign in on a mortgage when buying our homes, take student loans, finance the purchase of a new car or incur some other form of debt to enable investments and other capital intensive purchases. Businesses sell stocks and bonds to support growth, investments and expenses exceeding their current income. In short, most people and businesses use leverage to facilitate growth, investments and expenses. They all balance their budget eventually, after loans are fully paid. Except they do so over a long period of time rather than within a single year as proposed by the Congressional Republicans’ balanced budget amendment. A cyclically balanced budget was first proposed by the biblical Joseph who argued that government should create a budget (food) surplus in (the next seven) boom years to cover for a budget deficit in (the next seven) lean years. He applied the Keynesian economic model (thousands of years before Keynes was born) of an active government fiscal policy designed to smooth and level economic cycles by providing restrains (in the form of higher taxes and spending cuts) in boom years, while growing government expenditures and lowering taxes during recessions. Joseph was proved right. He saved Egypt (including his own brothers) from mass starvation. Myth There is plenty of proof that the Keynesian economic model does not work. Obama tried it with the failing stimulus; Japan applied it during the 90’s but still lost the decade to anemic growth; Roosevelt implemented it during the Great Depression, but it took more than a decade to finally spawn real economic growth. Fact Jumping out of an airplane while the parachute opens, but only partially, may lead to serious injury short of death. Witnessing this tragedy, some may argue that parachutes are useless. Some others may counter by saying that the parachutist would have been killed had he jumped without it. Truth is, parachutes work when they operate to their full extent. The same is true with Keynesian economics. During the Great Depression Roosevelt’s policies were able to stop the down spiral of the US economy. The American way of life was saved, but it was still in bad shape. Following Roosevelt’s ascent to power the economy changed course. It embarked on a positive trajectory until 1937. Then, fiscal conservatives were able to shape the agenda and force a reduction in government spending. The inevitable outcome turned out to be an economic contraction and a second dip in economic activity. World War II lifted the US out of the Great Depression thanks to massive government spending supported by a massive budget deficit (emphasis on massive). History has demonstrated that the Keynesian model proved right when implemented to its full extent. Japan’s lost decade can be characterized by government’s half measures. When economic activity seemed to converge on a positive trajectory, the Japanese government pulled back, bringing progress to a standstill once again. They kept playing the same music throughout the anemic decade. Most objective economists agree that the US government’s (including the Federal Reserves’) economic programs saved the US from another Great Depression. As I argued iearlier, TARP was a great success. The lowest ever tax rates during the past three years have helped lift the US economy out of its negative GDP growth. Other stimuli were not highly successful due to typical government inefficiencies, but they did save thousands of teachers’, police’s and firefighters’ jobs. The Feds’ two-phased Quantitative Easing was helpful in stabilizing the financial system and lifting the stock market. Overall, government spending during the Great Recession was high; it contributed to a pull from the brink of another Great Depression. It has been insufficient. Unemployment is still high. The deficit has soared to a level unparalleled in history, giving birth to those claiming that Keynesian policies do not work—the Tea Party. The parachute opened half way only because fiscal conservatives were able to dominate the economic agenda. They were successful in changing the topic from job growth to deficit reduction. They were intent on repeating the mistakes of 1937. Myth Obama is a liberal Marxist Fact Obama’s track record is one of a person who has saved big business from massive failures. He saved the auto industry, the big banks, and AIG. Although TARP was initiated under his watch, his government’s ownership of these companies has never intended to assume permanency or operational control. In fact, most of the TARP money has been repaid and capitalism has been revitalized thanks to it. Charging a president with communist tendencies may be more appropriate to someone who tries to control inflationary pressures, not through reduction in government spending, but rather via price, wage and rent control. These administrative measures represent a great departure from the free market forces of supply and demand. These are measures taken by communist s and socialists. These measures were taken by Richard Nixon, a Republican president. Obama caved in to the Tea Party’s demands in his attempt to forestall a US government default on its debt. He sided with most of the conservative agenda. He did not raise taxes; he agreed to severe budget cuts. These facts make him more conservative than most members of his Democratic Party. Myth The Tea Party victory in the latest election represents the will of the people Fact In spite of numerous claims by members of the Tea Party, they do not represent the majority of the American people. They are a small minority elected out of highly conservative districts. Their agenda is not the “people’s agenda”, but rather a small “group of people’s agenda”. The Tea Party’s source of power is their disregard to the welfare of the American people. When you say “No compromise” from the outset, your negotiating position is enhanced. When you take hostages and threaten to kill them if your demands are not met by the deadline, your negotiating position is enhanced as long as the other side cares. When you are willing to commit suicide defending your religion or your ideology, when you are willing to martyr yourself, kill and be killed in the process, you become an extremely tough opponent. Your aggression may pay off if the other side cares about the rest of us, if the other side is civilized. There is a war in Washington. There are wars in parts of the world. Hate and killing is part of the equation. But even under these circumstances, there are rules. The warring parties are not allowed the use of WMD. Holding the debt ceiling hostage and announcing willingness to default was equivalent to using financial WMD. It should have been deemed illegal. Even though I support the cause of taking control of the budget, I resent the use of WMD in support of that cause. So please do not misunderstand my position. I support the goal of financial responsibility. I object to the means used by the tea party to achieve it. The Tea Party’s winning record has made them more confident, more arrogant, more aggressive and more dangerous. S&P must have taken that fact into account when considering the probability of the US becoming irresponsible when it comes to fulfilling its financial obligations. Myth Obama’s threat of defaulting on US debt had been merely scare tactics and fear mongering. Freezing the debt ceiling in place would not have caused any default. In the worst case, a frozen debt ceiling might have forced late payment on some bills. Fact Those who spread that myth fail to understand the seriousness of a default on US financial obligations. It is not by any means equivalent to a late payment. It is a default. And had the US defaulted or even suggested that it would default, it would have set off a worldwide panic that would have made the S&P downgrade look insignificant compared to the long term world market downgrade of US financial viability and credit worthiness. The damage would have been felt by innocent bystanders all throughout the world. Bio Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks," and more recently, "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories -distinguished staff member and manager, a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to the ITU—the UN International Standards body in Geneva, a professor at Northwestern University and Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government The US pressures Israel to apologize to turkey for the Mavi Marmara incident.
This idea could easily be accepted following a US apology to Pakistan for the Bin Laden incident. After all, the US committed two crimes (one more than Israel’s doing). 1. The US violated Pakistani sovereignty while 2. The US team assassinated a prized leader. LOL Armageddon is approaching. Congress is deadlocked. The bad guys are screaming, “We want the Marxist president to default on the country’s debt. We don’t care if interest rates rise, if this is the highest tax the American people will pay. As long as Obama and his Marxist administration do not benefit, taxes may rise. He, he, he…We merely want this president to fail us. We don’t care if we get damaged as a consequence. We are suicide bombers, and don’t forget it.”
The clock on the time bomb is clicking. Time is running out. The world is watching as heart rates are racing. Drama…Drama… Can anyone disable this ticking bomb? Is James Bond around? Where is he? Monday night… Too late for James Bond. He is too old already, retired in the Bahamas. Then, a sign of hope. Breaking news out of the White House. CNN announces a presidential press conference. Anxiety...Excitement... We are going to tune in... Is the president going to admit defeat? Are we about to plunge into this fireball and default? What? What is he telling us? He is mad, isn’t he? He drops the F bomb. He points his middle finger at Capitol Hill. Yes…Yes… He is raising the debt ceiling without having congressional authority. He is saving the world. He is our new hero… He is the world’s hero. Wow, am I relieved? What? The bad guys are threatening impeachment? Really, is that what Chutzpah is? And I thought that the script ended happily, just like Hollywood. Not to worry. It will. Unfortunately we will have to wait for the sequel. It may sound peculiar, but there is plenty of truth behind the notion that president Obama and the state of Israel have more in common than the naked eye can see. This simple fact has grown evident thanks to the recent debt ceiling debate, in which Washington is being immersed.
This realization, on my part, took place a couple of days ago. The article I wrote “Facts and Myths about the US Economy” http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/Article.aspx?id=230771 was not sufficiently hostile towards Obama; it was rather critical vis-à-vis some of the conservatives’ talking points concerning their understanding and treatment of the US economy. Predictably, I was condemned by a conservative friend who, more often than not, applauded my writings since we tend to see eye to eye when it comes to Israel’s security issues. This time, he disapproved, saying that I’d failed to see ”Hussein Obama for what he is: A naked Marxist who'd like to dismantle America's free enterprise system and turn this wonderful nation into a third world country.” He added that in November 2012 “this Muslim will be evicted from the White (Black house) house...” He even transferred his hostility to anyone who might come to argue that some of Obama’s economic policies have been correct by saying that I may be “suffering from white/Jewish man guilt.” He is not alone. He represents many who view the world through the same kaleidoscope. Oh well. If you read between the lines, you must come to one unambiguous conclusion. These particular comments unearth a serious problem. People holding these or similar views are racists; they suffer from deep and intense blind hate (emphasis on blind). Instead of looking at what the man says or does, they are blinded by his skin color, by his middle name, by some distorted illusory image, painted by rival politicians, bent on demonization and character assassination rather than reality. Let me be clear. I am not an Obama fan, but I refuse to accept slanted characterizations of this man. Undeniably, he is neither a Marxist—as president, he is more "center" economically than many of his predecessors—nor a Muslim—he is officially a Christian, but unofficially—highly secular. True, this president tries too hard to appease the Muslims, a fact that annoys me, makes my blood run cold. But when it comes to managing the economy his policies are far brainier than the thoughtless politicians from the Tea Party who would rather bring about an economic Armageddon than agree with Obama even on issues they would have pursued religiously had a Republican president proposed them. Blind hate is a mental disorder preventing the sickly individual from seeing and perceiving the real world objectively without prejudice. Those who suffer from this perceptual disorder tend to demonize their hate-object without regard to what that object has been saying or doing. And being demonized by brain-washed adversaries without regard to the truth of the matter is a common trait shared by both—Obama and the Jewish state. When Mitch McConnell announced that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” Obama must have deemed McConnell a suicide bomber, since in Obama’s views McConnell “was willing to take us all down, himself included, have the US undergo a double-dip recession in order to score political points.” Obama understood that “ultimately, it’s the Economy, stupid,” which will determine the winner of the next election. In Obama’s view, McConnell was implying that “If we, the Republicans, manage to have the economy stalled, we increase our chances for gaining the upper hand in 2012.” Isn’t that policy equivalent to Hamas’ claim that the single most important thing they want to achieve is for Israel to be wiped off the map? Aren’t they willing to have their people undergo physical and economic hardship in consequence? Don’t they realize that ultimately “it’s the Jew-hatred, stupid,” which will keep their popularity high, provide them with a purpose, a reason to exist? Obama should learn his lesson and apply it to his understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He must realize that negotiating with fanatics, whose “all-or nothing” approach, whose blind hostility towards him (or Israel) directs these extremists to view compromise as a dirty word, a blasphemy worthy of the death penalty. I want to believe that the US president is smart enough to recognize that there is no hope for peace with those who view his personal (or Israel’s) demise as a priority overshadowing their own welfare, that the essence of his (or Israel’s) actions is meaningless to his (or Israel’s) hate-consumed rivals, that it’s not what or how well he (or Israel) does or what concession he (or Israel) makes, but rather who he (or the Jewish state) is. I hope Obama learns his lesson. He should apply that new revelation to his understanding of Israel’s predicament. The US president should equate his latest negotiating experience with the GOP—Obama considers whose agenda to have been hijacked by a financial terrorist organization, a.k.a the Tea Party—with Israel’s long-term experience with the Palestinian Authority—whose agenda has been hijacked by a terrorist organization a.k.a Hamas. I hope that Obama comes to his senses; he should realize that a peace process is lifeless when the other side refuses to negotiate, sticks to uncompromising positions, hates you for who you are, and not for what you say or do, blames you for their misfortunes rather than looking at the mirror, willing to commit suicide only to see you damaged. Does Mr. President see the analogy? Will he finally understand? Does he realize that his assessment of Michelle Bachman is equivalent to Israel’s view of Khaled Meshaal, that his “friend” John Boehner is Israel’s Mahmoud Abbas, that his Fox News is Israel’s Al Jazeera, that the Tea Party’s obsession with taxes is equivalent to the Palestinian’s fixation on the Right of Return? I wonder how Obama reacts to the GOP claims that their program calling for massive budget cuts—bringing about substantial layoffs in the process— contribute to economic growth. Does he see that these claims are equivalent to the Palestinian’s declaration that the terror campaign they refer to as “resistance” contributes to peace? Unfortunately, Obama may not see the analogy. He may still opt for a peace process; he may still believe that the other side may resort to reason, may opt for a real peace, for a win-win conclusion. What this president fails to realize is that the only win for the other side is seeing him out of office, and in Israel’s case, it is wiping the Jewish state off the map. This president needs to wake up, open his eyes and smell the dandelion. It’s an all-out war out there including in your own backyard, Mr. President! Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network(PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks," and more recently, "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories distinguished staff member and manager, a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to UN International Standards body, a professor at Northwestern University and Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government. More information is available at www.aviperry.org As the deadline for lifting the debt limit is approaching, the political rhetoric in Washington keeps gaining steam. Distortions of reality, dipped in sacred ideology, false economic theories, defiance of historical truths—all jam the air, the print media, the talk show discussions and the small talks around the water cooler.
The lies and the distortions spread by those who oppose the lifting of the debt ceiling must be addressed and exposed for what it is—dirty politics wrapped in a baseless ideology. The following is an incomplete list of myths and facts concerning the US economy and the implications associated with the debt, the deficit and the role of the government. Myth The Debt Ceiling (I call it—the Death Ceiling) is conditioned upon a bi-partisan agreement on lowering or balancing the US Government budget. Fact There is no dependence between the lifting of the debt ceiling and the budget deficit. In fact, it is my strong opinion that there should be no debt ceiling at all. The American government must honor its obligations regardless of the budget deficit’s size. The debt ceiling should be raised or completely eliminated, since each and every time we approach it, we realize that we have no choice but to raise it yet again. Government spending must be conducted responsibly with an eye on the size of the deficit regardless of the existence or the absence of a debt ceiling. If the ceiling is not lifted or eliminated altogether, the US will bring about a self-inflicted long-term disaster on its economy and on its economic dominance in the world while drowning the rest of the world in the process. Myth In recent days the rhetoric made use of the term “job creators” when referring to the rich. Is it the proper term or is it misleading? Fact The real job creators are the consumers. The boss will hire more workers if present business capacity is unable to fully satisfy consumers’ demand for goods and services. The boss will lay off employees if business capacity exceeds consumers’ demand. Taxes have little to do with hiring or firing of employees. The bosses do not create jobs. In their attempts to maximize their profit they act to satisfy demand in response to the real job creators—the customers. What we need right now is a “Demand-Side” economic policy rather than a “Supply-Side” one. Myth The US needs a Balanced Budget amendment to the constitution. Fact Under a balanced budget amendment Government may be paralyzed at times of emergencies when it’s most needed. It will not be able to act quickly and decisively during unforeseen events like natural disasters such as Katrina, man-made disasters such as wars, or economic calamities such as the collapse of the auto industry, the breakdown of the financial sector or both. History has demonstrated that attempts to balance the budget during an economic depression caused more harm than good, and the damage was not confined to the short term. There is no need for a balanced budget amendment, especially now, when the economy is sluggish and unemployment is high. Shocking the economy at this point by forcing massive budgetary cuts in the short term is insane, unless policy makers are nostalgic about the great depression and feel like living through a greater one. Myth Taxes are too high in the US Fact Taxes are the lowest they have ever been. Income tax payments this year will be nearly 13% lower than in 2008—the last full year of the Bush presidency. The poor economy is largely to blame for the low tax rate, but the tax code is not an innocent bystander either. It grows each year with new deductions, credits and exemptions. Both rich and poor pay significantly less than they did in the past. Myth Supply Side Economics is what America needs. Fact Supply-side economics has never worked. The idea was that lower tax rates would provide strong incentives to earn more income, and as a consequence tax revenues would go up. Even supporters admit that the big supply-side tax cuts of the 1980s and the 2000s did not work as advertised, but those who want to believe in this false theory, despite the historic evidence to the contrary, hold on to their religious conviction in the Supply Side theory. They choose to ignore the fact that the promised boon in tax revenues has never materialized. Myth Government does not create jobs. Fact There are two main roles the government plays in the economy. It is the largest employer of the American workforce in addition to being the private sector’s most significant customer. As of March, 2009 Total Federal government employees amounted to over 2.8 million people with monthly payroll exceeding $15 Billion, not including the armed forces. The number of state and local employees was equal to over 5.3 million with payroll for that month equal to a figure exceeding $19.3 Billion. Government purchases of goods and services including healthcare, education and defense in 2010 amounted to $2.764 Trillion. The figure does not include expenditures for pensions, welfare and interest payments. Government expenditures are directly responsible for spawning millions of jobs in the private sector. Government expenditures for pensions, welfare and interest provide an indirect stimulus, offsetting some of the counter-stimulus tax burden. Myth The US Economy is like the Greek Economy Fact One of conservatives’ favorite talking points these days is that the U.S. is going to end up like Greece if we don’t do something drastic. This statement ignores some basic realities. Greece’s economy is small and relatively insignificant compared to the US economy. Unlike the US, Greece’s debt is not in its own currency. In fact, Greece doesn’t even have its own currency. Unlike the US, Greece’s fiscal and monetary policies are not coordinated because Greece has no control over its monetary policy. The US can prevent defaulting on its own debt unless it chooses otherwise. All real economists are in the opinion that a country can always pay its debt when the debt is in its own currency. It can simply print more money and devalue its currency and its debt in the process. In spite of the Great Recession the US has a vibrant economy. Its production capacity, innovative atmosphere and capital levels, are unmatched in the world. Not a single person can say that about Greece. Myth The Obama/Bernanke bailouts have been wrong and ineffective Fact TARP— the Troubled Assets Relief Program, created in October 2008 at the height of the financial crisis has been one of the most prominent success stories of the great recession. Not only most of the $410 billion (out of the authorized $700 billion) is being paid back, but it did hit the brakes on the down spiral of the economy following the Lehman Brothers’ collapse. Real economists agree that without TARP and the massive quantitative easing (QE) by the Federal Reserve unemployment could have risen to levels matching or even exceeding the levels of the Great Depression. It is a fact that proper government economic policies have been directly responsible for 8.5% unemployment. This figure is high compared to an ideal level, but it is very low in comparison to what it could have been had TARP failed to materialize. Without TARP the American auto industry would have disappeared forever, taking with it all supporting industries and a great deal of the American manufacturing base. Without TARP banks would have failed, AIG would have failed, taking with them numerous industries, shrinking the money supply to a bottom that prevents any economic recovery while sinking the rest of the US to levels equivalent or lower than levels experienced during the Great Depression. Claiming that TARP has weakened the economy is like claiming that the CIA (rather than al Qaeda) flew airplanes into the World Trade Center. Go figure… Myth The Obama Administration created the largest budget deficit ever Fact This statement is actually true, but it fails to deliver an authentic picture. The Obama Administration had no choice but to save a troubled economy and to support the troops in two wars it inherited. The Administration shouldn’t be blamed for trying to get the economy out of the ditch; it had no choice. And given the circumstances, it was the right thing to do. Myth The next generation will have to pay for the present government spending spree. Fact True but distorted, since the statement above is an attempt to place blame on the wrong party. The next generation would have paid much more if unemployment and underemployment reached levels of the Great Depression since parents would not have been able to invest in their children’s future. Government spending is not the only reason for the largest US budget deficit ever. The Bush tax cut is clearly a contributing factor. Still, tax cuts and greater levels of government spending were preferred to balancing the budget during the Great Recession. Running a budget deficit has been a better choice than sliding down the cliff the US was staring at, following the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Myth Balancing the budget can only be accomplished by reducing spending rather than raising revenue since there is a need to transfer more resources to the private sector away from the government. Fact As I have argued earlier, there is no evidence favoring Supply-Side Economics. Accordingly, there is no proof that the private sector can, on its own, lift the economy out of the ditch. The private sector is frozen due to lack of demand. The only force that could jump start the economy at this point is an economic force not motivated by profit. Businesses will not invest and will not hire unless they see evidence of renewed economic activity justifying new spending. If we depend on the private sector to jump start the economy we must provide it with a compelling reason. In the absence of one, the recession will only get worse since leaving it unchecked will only cause it to feed upon itself, spiral down the cliff to levels of a Great Depression. Ubiquitous absence of demand generates more of the same, more layoffs, more depression. The statement above is true only when the economy is healthy, when it fires on all cylinders at full force, when it benefits from full employment. In times of high unemployment when so many resources are underutilized, pulling resources out of an idle pool does not deprive the private sector. On the contrary, it spawns new job creators—more working consumers who are willing and eager to spend their earned income on goods and services produced by the private sector. Myth Raising the debt ceiling is a Democrat’s Socialist’s idea Fact When president Obama was a senator, and when Bush was president. Obama objected to raising the debt ceiling. When President Reagan faced the same issue he argued that “Unfortunately, Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility—two things that set us apart from much of the world.” Would you still argue that it’s a democrat’s idea consistent with a tax and spend policy? Myth Conservatives have accused the Obama Administration for following the Keynesian policy of Tax and Spend. Is it really what Keynes advocated? Fact Keynes advocated an active fiscal policy by the government to balance and repair the economic conditions. In fact, he believed in increasing taxes and reducing spending in times of inflationary pressures while reducing taxes and increasing spending in times of high unemployment. This is the opposite of a straight tax and spends policy. My Bio Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks," and more recently, "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories -distinguished staff member and manager, a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to the ITU—the UN International Standards body in Geneva, a professor at Northwestern University and Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government In his latest speech to the American Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. He added that as long as the Palestinian Arabs continue to perpetuate their fantasy that the Jewish state will cease to exist, there could be no peace between them and Israel.
He was right. The conflict is not about the pre-1967 borders with mutually agreed territorial swaps. It has always been about the pre-1947 border, when there was none. The Palestinians have been unwilling to end the conflict. Had they been interested in a two-state peaceful solution, they would have abandoned their demand for the right of return; they would have agreed to settle the refugee problem within the confines of their (would be) independent, occupation-free Palestinian state. They would have stopped educating their children to hate. They would have ceased naming public squares after terrorists; they would not have fired anti-tank missiles on Israeli school busses, rockets and mortar on civilians, or (even) on the Israeli military; they would have worked tirelessly to gain Israel’s trust. But they have not. And there is no peaceful logic behind the Palestinians’ great grandchildren’s insistence on “returning” to Israel — a land they have never stepped a foot on, a land as foreign to them as Guatemala. Why would any Palestinian Arab want to leave his or her newly established, democratic, free country and come to live under what they refer to as an “apartheid-practicing” Jewish government? It defies logic. Unless, of course, Israel has no Jewish government, no Jewish majority and it is no longer a Jewish state. Palestinians perceive a peace agreement with Israel as a document formalizing their unconditional surrender. Their humiliating defeat in 1948, in which they watched the Jewish people establish a Jewish state on land they considered Islamic, is a shameful experience they are unable to shake off. That humiliation and the corresponding urge to redeem the lost honor is more commanding than the sensible strategy of calling for a peace offensive. Some cool-headed Arab leaders have claimed that the peace process can serve as a smoke screen in pursuit of what had been defined as the Salami Principle — one slice at a time. It boils down to putting international pressure on Israel to weaken itself through a series of withdrawals to earlier borders, preceding the final assault on what’s left of the Jewish state whose indefensible borders would make it an easy prey. And in the Arab Middle East, reclaiming a lost honor overshadows straightforward logic. Focusing on the pre-1967 borders as the main issue for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is like using sterile needles for lethal injections, or playing video ballgames on your Xbox and calling it physical exercise. Considering the apparent irrelevance, why did Netanyahu — while gazing into president Obama’s private thoughts — make the pre-1967 border the centerpiece of his argument? Why didn’t the Israeli PM try to call the Palestinians’ bluff by agreeing to the fake notion? “Yes Mr. President,” Netanyahu could have declared. “Let’s restart the peace process from the pre-1967 borders with mutually agreed swaps,” trusting the other side to derail any meaningful negotiations, then be blamed for the failure once they insist on including Hamas at or behind the negotiating table? Had Netanyahu swallowed the pill served by Obama, even though analysis had deemed it a placebo, it might have undermined his job. His coalition partners would have abandoned him, likening him to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, the loser who wrongly believed that appeasing an aggressor would bring about peace. Had Netanyahu followed Obama’s lead he might have run the risk that the Palestinians, including Hamas, would have played along by resorting to deception, by whispering a ”yes” (in English) to negotiations. They would have employed Obama’s proposal as a fresh starting point — blessed by the U.S. president and endorsed by the Israeli PM — in preparation for a full-scale implementation of the Salami Principle. The seeming gap between Obama’s and Netanyahu’s approaches to peace with the Palestinians yanks its intensity from their knowledge of history as it relates to their personal experiences and risk assessment. Netanyahu has plenty of reasons for placing mistrust in the Palestinians. He remembers that Israeli withdrawals from territories occupied during defensive wars have always been met by Arab deadly aggression in return. It was true in the West Bank following the Oslo accord when suicide bombing inside Israeli cities became a daily affair; it was true following Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon when Hezbollah took over the territory and began shooting rockets at Israeli towns. And it was true all over again following Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. Netanyahu knows what the Palestinians’ true goals are; he knows that the peace process is a smoke screen, designed to mask their true intentions. On the other hand, President Obama — like Nixon and Kissinger before him when negotiating peace with the North Vietnamese — is looking for a short-term stress relief. If the peace agreement turns into a fiasco, if it is proven hollow, or if the concluding handshakes around the negotiating table were intended to relax and weaken Israel’s (or U.S.’s) guards, making the final assault by the Arabs (or by the North Vietnamese in Kissinger’s case) more effective, then it’s a problem. But it’s somebody else’s problem. From an American point of view, the promise of peace is worth the risk since the true burden of facing the potential catastrophic consequences is borne by someone else, by someone far away from home. Netanyahu was right to reject President Obama’s approach. He understood that further Israeli concessions toward peace with the Palestinians would only bring about more violence in return. He understood that the Palestinians’ talk about a peace process is unmistakably consistent with their view of the Salami Principle, while their Islamic teaching forbids treatment of Jews as worthy human beings. He understood that peace with the Palestinians or a two-state solution, living peacefully side by side is a mirage, an illusion borne by the U.S. president. He knew that Israel rather than the U.S. would be the one bearing the catastrophic consequences of making premature concessions. Netanyahu had no other choice but to push back. The reaction delivered by the U.S. Congress proved him right. Well done, Mr. Prime Minister! BIO Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks," and more recently, "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories - distinguished staff member and manager, a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to the ITU—the UN International Standards body in Geneva, a professor at Northwestern University and Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government. It was inevitable.
Hamas and Fatah have signed a reconciliation agreement leading to a unity deal with elections planned for no later than September. Israeli president, Shimon Peres called it, “a fatal mistake that will ruin the chances for the establishment of the Palestinian Authority as a country." I call it a blessing in disguise. We should not interrupt our enemy while they get it wrong. This agreement sings like Pavarotti. It exposes the false facade, the teeth of this Palestinian Authority (PA) jaw trap, for the whole world to see and realize. Can you imagine signing peace with Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, only to see it annulled a short time later by the next Palestinian, Hamas-inspired ruler? Wouldn't it be easier, less risky to renounce it now, before letting it grow and solidify, before consenting to the rule of terrorists over Judea and Samaria? It's no secret. Hamas enjoys wide support among the Palestinian population in Gaza and in the West Bank. Hamas represents a critical share of the Palestinian population in these areas. Had real democracy been put into action in these territories Hamas could have gained a significant share or even a majority of the votes, the same as they had in 2006. The latest Hamas-Fatah agreement can only elucidate and bring to the fore what was not apparent to those peace-seeking naïve leaders of the West. Let's not bury our heads in the sand. Hamas is as Palestinian as an orange is to orange juice. And one can't form a representative Palestinian government without sharing power with these blood-thirsty terrorists who keep calling for Jihad against all Jews. Signing a peace agreement with Mahmoud Abbas, with a person pretending to be in charge, with a government that does not represent, or does not even rule over half of its people is not worth the paper the agreement is signed on. This type of an agreement is exceedingly unstable. It's a ruse. Fatah activist Kifah Radaydeh, who was interviewed on PA TV, could not have said it clearer. "...we perceive peace as one of the strategies," he said. "…It has been said that we are negotiating for peace, but our goal has never been peace. Peace is a means; the goal is Palestine (i.e., the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea)." When it comes to their intentions vis-à-vis Israel, Kifah Radaydeh has been candid; Hamas has been forthright; the PA and its president have been deceptive. They fooled the Israeli left, they fooled the world; they gained sympathy and support for their fake cause. Not anymore. Should the Hamas-Fatah reunion take place the rest of the world will confront a new PA. The world will face up to an uncompromising Islamic regime that does not take cover behind a fake façade. Had unambiguous logic dominated the thinking of existing world powers, the Hamas-Fatah reunion would have helped the US and the EU put down that crack pipe and get a grip on reality. They would realize that blaming the Jewish state for lack of progress in the peace process with the Palestinians is like accusing Poland for instigating World War II, or holding the US responsible for setting off a war with al Qaeda on 9/11. They would realize that a majority of Palestinians are the ones who give Palestinians their bad name. They would recognize that peace in the Middle East will come when we all speak Esperanto, that agreements with unstable Islamic regimes are as dead as Latin. The Hamas-Fatah reunion should serve as a revelation. It should help the Israeli government and the rest of the world realize that even if this reunion does not materialize at this instant it is a semi-dormant volcano ready to erupt at any moment in the very near future. You can't be safe living next to an active volcano unless you dismiss the Pompeii experience. You can't make peace with a PA that changes its colors every other season unless you don't mind paving the road to an all out deadly war. BIO Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks," and more recently, "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories - distinguished staff member and manager, a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to the ITU—the UN International Standards body in Geneva, a professor at Northwestern University and Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government. |
Categories
All
|