December 10, 2009
3 questions about the freeze
A few weeks ago when Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced a freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria, there were a couple of points in his favor. According to Evelyn Gordon it helped Netanyahu shore up his political support. Israel Matzav, though skeptical, thought it helped Netanyahu focus on the Iranian threat. More recently Ambassador Michael Oren emphasized that the freeze demonstrated Netanyahu's commitment to peace.
But there are potential pitfalls. What if President Obama has concluded that he can live with a nuclear Iran? What if the freeze instead of building confidence, actually encourages terror? And finally when the ten months are up, will Israel see (American) pressure to maintain the freeze?
Crossposted on Yourish.
Submitted 12/10/09
This weeks Watcher of Weasel's nominations appear here.
Welcome back to Wolf Howling.
Welcome to American Digest.
Council Submissions
Honorable Mention
Non-Council Submissions
Read. Enjoy. Be informed.
December 9, 2009
When the new york times said jesus wins
(h/t Pillage Idiot via Twitter)
What's a "stooper?"
T.D. Thornton, a journalist who wrote about stoopers in his 2007 book, "Not by a Long Shot: A Season at a Hard-Luck Horse Track," said: "Stoopers are the gleaners of the racetrack world. Stoopers have a relationship with horse tracks that goes back to the advent of parimutuel betting in the early 1930s. There is an unwritten code in racing that says stoopers are tolerated as long as they are not perceived as harassing or stalking customers.""They are allowed to live on the fringes," he added.
Specifically, a stooper is someone who picks up discarded betting slips and checks to see if they win. In this case, the stooper profiled is Jesus Leonardo, who makes his living around an OTB parlor in New York.
Mr. Leonardo, who is married with two teenagers, is hardly living on the fringes. He said that stooping brings him $100 to $300 a day, and more than $45,000 a year. Last month, he cashed in a winning ticket from bets made on races at Santa Anita Park in Arcadia, Calif., for $8,040. His largest purse came in 2006, when he received $9,500 from a Pick 4 wager (choosing the winners of four consecutive races) at Retama Park Race Track in Selma, Tex.It is all taxable income. "I file my winnings with the I.R.S. every year," Mr. Leonardo said in his thick Dominican accent.
What I really liked though was this quote:
"Everybody in here loves Jesus," he said. "When Jesus wins, we all eat, and we all drink. Jesus is a very generous man."
It's great even if "Jesus wins" isn't as inspirational as "Jesus saves."
3 on occupation
Twenty years ago Jeane Kirkpatrick wrote (.pdf) |:
There is disagreement among Arab governments about who has rightful sovereignty over this area, but all agree that it is not Israel. Arab states have aggressively pushed their case. They have fought costly wars and made it necessary for Israel to maintain large, powerful, expensive military forces to defend itself against them. But when Israel's military victories made the price of large wars too high, the struggle was moved to the UN, an arena whose chief activity is not conflict resolution (as is generally believed) but what has been correctly termed "collective legitimization" and "collective delegitimization."
In no way has that been more apparent than the way the term "illegal occupation" has been used. If the lands Israel captured in 1967 are illegally occupied then Israel has not just an interest in making peace with the Palestinians but a moral (and legal) obligation to make peace by acceding to every single demand made by the Palestinians. Years of terrorism are washed away and Israel by virtue of its "illegal occupation" is now the villain.
Here a number of articles that deal with the misuse of the term occupation, which, by itself, is a legal concept not a violation of international law and its selective application to Israel.
From "Why Is Israel's Presence in the Territories Still Called "Occupation"?" by Avinoam Sharon (.pdf|)
The term "occupation" is employed politically, without regard for its general or legal meaning. The use of the term "occupation" in political rhetoric reduces complex situations of competing claims and rights to clear-cut, predefined categories of right and wrong.The use of the terms "occupation" and "occupier" in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict also serves to advance the argument that Israel bears ultimate responsibility for
the welfare of the Palestinians, while limiting or denying Israel's right to defend itself
against Palestinian terror,59 and while relieving the Palestinian side of responsibility for
its own actions and decisions and their consequences. This purposeful use of the term
"occupation" would appear to be an important factor motivating the reinterpretation
and expansion of the concept of occupation.The use of the term "occupation" to maintain Israel's responsibility for the fate of the
Palestinians also serves the agenda of those who question the legitimacy of the State
of Israel or who view Israel as an American or Western proxy. This political abuse of the
term "occupation" to demonize Israel as part of a general assault upon the West, or upon Israel's legitimacy, underlies the continued use of the term in regard to Israel as part of a geopolitical narrative that has little to do with Israel's status as an occupier under international law.
From "From 'occupied territories' to 'disputed territories'" by Dore Gold.
The politically-loaded term "occupied territories" or "occupation" seems to apply only to Israel and is hardly ever used when other territorial disputes are discussed, especially by interested third parties. For example, the U.S. Department of State refers to Kashmir as "disputed areas."5 Similarly in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the State Department describes the patch of Azerbaijan claimed as an independent republic by indigenous Armenian separatists as "the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh."6Despite the 1975 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice establishing that Western Sahara was not under Moroccan territorial sovereignty, it is not commonly accepted to describe the Moroccan military incursion in the former Spanish colony as an act of "occupation." In a more recent decision of the International Court of Justice from March 2001, the Persian Gulf island of Zubarah, claimed by both Qatar and Bahrain, was described by the Court as "disputed territory," until it was finally allocated to Qatar.7
Of course each situation has its own unique history, but in a variety of other territorial disputes from northern Cyprus, to the Kurile Islands, to Abu Musa in the Persian Gulf -- which have involved some degree of armed conflict -- the term "occupied territories" is not commonly used in international discourse.8
Thus, the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip appears to be a special exception in recent history, for in many other territorial disputes since the Second World War, in which the land in question was under the previous sovereignty of another state, the term "occupied territory" has not been applied to the territory that had come under one side's military control as a result of armed conflict.
From the "Illegal Settlement Myth" by David M. Phillips.
That is a key reason why Julius Stone termed the anti-settlement interpretation "an irony bordering on the absurd" and commented: "Ignoring the overall purpose of Article 49, which would inter alia protect the population of the State of Israel from being removed against their will into the occupied territory, it is now sought to be interpreted so as to impose on the Israel government a duty to prevent any Jewish individual from voluntarily taking up residence in that area."There is simply no comparison between the establishment and population of Israeli settlements and the Nazi atrocities that led to the Geneva Convention. The settlements are also a far cry from policies implemented by the Soviet Union in the late 1940s and early 1950s to alter the ethnic makeup of the Baltic states by initially deporting hundreds of thousands of people and encouraging Russian immigration.
Nor can they be compared to the efforts by China to alter the ethnic makeup of Tibet by forcibly scattering its native population and moving Chinese into Tibetan territory. Israel's settlement policies are also not comparable to the campaign by Morocco to alter the ethnic makeup of the Western Sahara by transferring Moroccan Arabs to displace the native Saharans, who now huddle in refugee camps in Algeria, or to the variety of population displacements that occurred in the various parts of the former Yugoslavia.
All these would seem to fit the offense described in Article 49(6) precisely. Yet finding references to the application of Article 49(6) to nations other than Israel is like looking for a needle in a haystack. What distinguishes a system of "law" from arbitrary systems of control is that similar situations are handled alike. A system where legal principles are applied only when it suits the political tastes of anti-Israel elites is one that has lost all credibility. The loose use of international law, disproportionately applied to Israel, undermines the notion that this is "law" entitled to authoritative weight in the first place.
Silence is goldstone
Judge Goldstone has been emphatic that his report on the Gaza war criticized both sides.
The report by Goldstone, a South African jurist, lambasted both sides in the December-January war, which killed up to 1,387 Palestinians and 13 Israelis, but was harsher toward Israel.
The accuracy of that claim is undermined by the paucity of specific mentions of Hamas in the report.
At one point, ala OJ, Hamas actually expressed a willingness to investigate the charges against it.
Hamas authorities said on October 15 that they will investigate the allegations against them. "Although we do not agree with certain aspects of his report, we intend to act on his recommendation and to carry out our own investigation into any alleged crimes committed by members of the resistance movements in Gaza," the Hamas-run Foreign Ministry said about the Goldstone report.
However, now, a month and a half later, Hamas claims that the report exonerates them.
Hamas second-in-command Musa Abu Marzouq said in an interview: "All paragraphs in the Goldstone report convict Israel and totally exonerate Hamas from any misconduct. For instance, the report exonerates Hamas from the accusation of using civilians as human shields and attributes this accusation to Israeli forces. Likewise, the report exonerated Hamas from all other accusations mentioned by Israel, and even when the report is dealing with the rockets which were launched from Gaza, it speaks about military groups without naming Hamas." Translated by Jonathan D. Halevi (Al-Mashahid Al-Siyasi-UK, Arabic, 5Dec09)
Given the provenance and makeup of Goldstone's commission, it's hardly surprising that it reached the results it did. The point of the report was not to do away with the "culture of impunity," but to condemn Israel. Unfortunately Judge Goldstone refuses to address substantive challenges to his report, instead cloaking himself in a mantle of self-righteousness. No doubt he will ignore this latest claim from Hamas, because Hamas was irrelevant to the commission's goals. Its report was not flawed, it achieved its purpose - it condemned Israel and let Hamas off the hook. That is what Hamas concluded. An honest man would vigorously dispute Marzouk's claim; but we can expect silence from Goldstone.
Crossposted on Yourish.
December 8, 2009
Time For Judge Richard Goldstone To Come Clean
Justice Goldstone said no one had been able to show any error of substance in the report nor to repudiate any of its findings.
Interview with South African Sunday Times, November 15
It
is one thing for Judge Goldstone to dismiss the numerous analyses of
the mistakes in the report that bears his name; it is another thing
entirely to ignore the existence of those analyses altogether.
Yet that is what Goldstone has been doing all along, and did again just 3 weeks ago, exploiting his greater exposure to public opinion to claim that the Goldstone Report is above reproach.
It isn't.
Yesterday, in a post about the Arab funding of the Goldstone report and the subsequent biases in the entire fact-finding process, I linked to some of the letters and posts that have done exactly what Judge Goldstone has claimed could not be done--they have shown errors of substance and repudiated its finding. In addition to a website that is dedicated solely to rebutting the claims of the report--Understanding the Goldstone Report--here are some links that deal with the content of the report head-on:
- Trevor Norwitz's Open Letter to Judge Goldstone
- CAMERA's A Formal Letter to Judge Goldstone
- CAMERA's The Goldstone Report: A Study in Duplicity
- Israel's Initial Response to Report of the Fact Finding Mission on Gaza
- Israel's The Operation in Gaza: Factual and Legal Aspects (Israel's analysis of the Operation itself)
I bring this point up again because Judge Goldstone has responded to one of these critiques, CAMERA's Formal Letter to Judge Goldstone--as noted in the update at the end of the letter:
UPDATE: Justice Goldstone "Answers" CAMERA's Letter
Dec. 7, 2009 -- Justice Goldstone has consistently tried to defend his eponymous report from criticism by claiming that "no one has been able to show any error of substance in the report nor any of its findings" (see, for example, South Africa's Sunday Times, Nov. 15), but when faced directly with the above questions, how did he respond?
In answer to a follow-up call by CAMERA on Dec. 7th about whether he had received our letter, Justice Goldstone responded:
Dear Ms. Hollander,
I confirm receipt of your letter. I have no intention of responding to your open letter.
Sincerely,
Richard Goldstone
In the same type of double standard that typifies the report, Justice Goldstone refuses himself to answer questions or provide clarification about the substance of his mission's findings, yet slams Israel for having refused to cooperate with or answer the questions of his investigating team.
The real question now is how long can Justice Goldstone continue to hide behind the deceptive argument that no one has addressed the substance or findings of the report?
Is it too much to hope for that Judge Richard Goldstone will finally stop claiming there are no criticisms of his report, even though he refuses to answer them?
UPDATE: Of course this is not the first time that Goldstone has avoided his critics. He recently declined to debate Alan Dershowitz--at Fordham University where Goldstone is teaching. Dershowitz went ahead without him.
by Daled Amos
The ongoing refuge of the refugees
As I noted a few weeks ago and Elder of Ziyon did yesterday, Palestinian refugees have no legal status in Lebanon - or in any Arab country.
So when Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinians, went to Lebanon the other day, did he demand equal rights for his constituents. Well, no he didn't.
"The status of Palestinian refugees will remain unchanged until a comprehensive, final solution is reached" with Israel, Abbas said after meeting Lebanese President Michel Sleiman in Beirut. "We believe there is no alternative to peace but peace itself, and we will continue our political fight for peace," he said in a news conference. A statement released by Sleiman's office said the two leaders rejected the naturalisation of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, an issue that for years has prompted controversy in Lebanese political circles.
Abbas did not say "let my people go" or even "let my people citizens." He said "keep my people dispossessed." This isn't the most stirring revolutionary message.
Or as Elder of Ziyon, put it, "Screw you."
Generations have grown up in Lebanon, raised families, and died, but their supposed "leader" is more interested in them keeping their stateless status rather than giving them the simple choice of allowing them to be more integrated into the land of their birth.Mahmoud Abbas, that supposedly moderate leader of the PA, the PLO and Fatah, who claims to represent millions of people of Palestinian Arab descent, has once again told his people to go screw themselves rather than give them the option of happiness as full citizens of other Arab lands. He arrogantly claims to know what is best for his people, and is dead-set against giving them the option of making their own decisions.
I've not read of any protests of Abbas's callous disregard of his people. However, two years ago when he went to Annapolis to discuss peace with Israel, there were protests. Abbas, to many, was a traitor for daring to discuss peace with Israel.
In Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas Islamists who oppose the meeting, tens of thousands joined an anti-Annapolis rally chanting "Abbas is a traitor" and "Death to Israel, death to America."Speaking at the largest protest in Hamas-run Gaza, leaders of the Islamist group which seized the enclave from Abbas's forces in June said the president had no right to make concessions to Israel at the U.S.-hosted conference.
"Let them go to a thousand conferences, we say in the name of the Palestinian people that we did not authorise anyone to sign any agreement that harms our rights," Mahmoud al-Zahar, a Hamas leader, told a cheering crowd.
So when Abbas attempts to make peace he is a traitor. When he keeps his people dispossessed he is, apparently, a hero. Such is the backwards nature of the Middle East, where perpetuating the status of refugees is the Arab goal.
Unfortunately the UNRWA, which is now celebrating "six decades of service and achievement" does its share to perpetuate the status of the refugees as Elder of Ziyon notes:
So UNRWA exaggerates the number of "refugees" in Lebanon by an astounding 60% - and begs money from world governments based on hugely inflated numbers.
The "service" the UNRWA provides is perpetuating its own mission. Working together with Palestinian leadership, the international community has helped perpetuate the Palestinian grievances for sixty years now.
Crossposted on Yourish.
December 7, 2009
Muslims Both Initiated And Funded Goldstone Report--Which Explains A Lot
Back in October, Al Jazeera reported on an interview it had with Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary-general of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC):
Al Jazeera: The UN's Goldstone report has been in the headlines in the past few weeks - not without controversy - and has brought to light the conduct of the Israelis and Hamas during the war on Gaza earlier in the year. Does the OIC see this as a step forward in recognising what transpired during that war and in bringing the plight of the Palestinians to the fore on an international scale?
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu: Let me first start by completing the story of the history of the Goldstone report. What I would like to put on record is that the OIC was the initiator of this process.
On January 3, during the attacks on Gaza, we convened the executive committee of the OIC on a ministerial level. It was decided that the OIC group in Geneva should ask the Human Rights Council to convene and consider the possibility of sending a fact-finding mission to Gaza.
On December 4, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, went a step further in revealing the origins of the Goldstone Report:
The Prosecutor also fielded questions about allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity by Israel. When asked, he offered no confirmation of reports that he had been invited by Hamas to advise on the legality of a Hamas-led investigation into attacks in Gaza this January. But, he admitted to working closely with the Arab League on the matter, which had helped finance the fact-finding Goldstone mission.
This of course explains the mandate given by the United Nations Human Rights Council, which targeted Israel alone, in language implying the conclusion the report was supposed to find:
to investigate all violations of international human rights law and International Humanitarian Law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission.
Although Judge Richard Goldstone has implied that the mandate is actually unbiased:
As you all know, the Mission was established in April of this year with the mandate to investigate "all violations of International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza from 27 December 2008 - 18 January 2009, whether before during or after"
the fact remains that the original language is the official formulation of the mandate, which was never formally changed or put to an official vote.
Not surprisingly, once Goldstone had carried out the intended mission of the UNHRC, the language expressed in their endorsement of the report was the same language used in the 'original' mandate--condemning only Israel, in the strongest terms--with no mention of Hamas in the entire report:
Strongly condemns all policies and measures taken by Israel, the occupying Power, including those limiting access of Palestinians to their properties and holy sites particularly in Occupied East Jerusalem, on the basis of national origin, religion, sex, age or any other discriminatory ground, which are in grave violation of the Palestinian People's civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights;
2. Condemns further the recent violations of human rights by Israel in Occupied East Jerusalem, particularly the confiscation of lands and properties, the demolishing of houses and private properties, the construction and expansion of settlements, the continuous construction of the separation Wall, changing the demographic and geographic character of East Jerusalem, the restrictions on the freedom of movement of the Palestinian citizens of East Jerusalem, as well as the continuous digging and excavation works in and around Al-Aqsa mosque and its vicinity;
3. Demands Israel, the occupying Power, to respect the religious and cultural rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the core international human rights instruments, the Hague Conventions, and the Geneva Conventions, and to allow Palestinian citizens and worshippers unhindered access to their properties and religious sites therein;
4. Also demands that Israel, the occupying Power, immediately cease all digging and excavation works and activities beneath and around Al-Aqsa Mosque and its vicinity, and refrain from any acts or operations that may endanger the structure or foundations or change the nature of holy sites both Christian and Islamic in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem;
5. Requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, pursuant to resolution S-9/1 of 12 January 2009 and in the context of her periodic reports, to monitor, document and report on the state of implementation by Israel, the occupying Power, of its human rights obligations in and around East Jerusalem;
Furthermore, Elder of Ziyon simply and graphically illustrates how the Goldstone Report practically ignores Hamas in its conclusion--and The Washington Post notes:
The Goldstone commission proceeded to make a mockery of impartiality with its judgment of facts. It concluded, on scant evidence, that 'disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy' by Israel. At the same time it pronounced itself unable to confirm that Hamas hid its fighters among civilians, used human shields, fired mortars and rockets from outside schools, stored weapons in mosques, and used a hospital for its headquarters, despite abundant available evidence.
Keep in mind, as the Washington Post noted, that the concern of the Arab World for human rights is decidedly one-sided:
it was interesting to see what else was in the latest statement issued by the kings, princes and authoritarian presidents of the Middle East and North Africa. First there was a call on "the international community to prosecute those responsible" for alleged "war crimes" committed by Israel in its recent offensive in Gaza. Then came an ardent defense of Sudanese dictator Omar Hassan al-Bashir -- who was welcomed to the Doha summit despite an outstanding arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court on multiple war crimes charges.
"We stress our solidarity with Sudan and our rejection of the decision" of the ICC, said the communique, which Mr. Bashir welcomed in a bombastic address to the summit plenary.
The condemnation of the Gaza War by the Arab World is obviously more interested in slamming Israel than in protecting the lives of Gazans--and the same attitude applies to other countries as well.
For example, take a look at the reaction of the UN Human Rights Council to the conclusion of the the bloody war of the Sri Lankan government with the Tamil Tigers--which commends the government with no mention of any condemnation whatsoever. It was not until October that it was possible to work around the Arab bloc and finally address the need for a Goldstone-style report on what happened there.
The glaring lack of objectivity naturally goes way beyond bias, resulting in actual errors of both fact and law, as detailed by a number of sites--and contrary to the absurd claim by both Goldstone and Col. Desmond Travers that criticism of the report does not touch upon its actual content.
See:
- Trevor Norwitz's Open Letter to Judge Goldstone
- CAMERA's A Formal Letter to Judge Goldstone
- CAMERA's The Goldstone Report: A Study in Duplicity
- Israel's The Operation in Gaza: Factual and Legal Aspects
- Israel's Initial Response to Report of the Fact Finding Mission on Gaza
From the initializing and funding of the Goldstone Report through its mandate, the mistakes and bias of the report, the way it was endorsed and the failure of the UN Human Rights Council--the entire process reeks of a contrived attempt to delegitimize Israel by any means available.
by Daled Amos
What happens when you don't get to finish the job
Hamas has escalated its warfare with Israel. The IDF has identified a new rocket used against Israel. (h/t David Hazony on Twitter)
On Sunday morning, security forces discovered remnants of a projectile that was fired by Palestinians in the central Gaza Strip.The rocket hit an open area near Kibbutz Alumim. No one was hurt in the incident and no damage was reported.
After examining the projectile, the IDF determined it was a Russian-made S5K-type rocket, intended to be fired from fighter bombers and helicopters to attack ground targets.
(I know the article claims that the rocket was fired by groups looking to undermine Hamas, but given the control Hamas has over Gaza - and its tunnels - I find it hard to believe that the rocket was fired without permission.)
Hamas's buildup of arms and infrastructure since Operation Cast Lead continues. The deterrence achieved from the Israeli attack has dissipated. The upgrade is one more indication of that.
Tom Gross recently reported on the improved economic conditions in the areas controlled by the PA. One thing he observed was this:
The government of Benjamin Netanyahu has removed them all since the Israeli security services (with the encouragement and support of Pres. George W. Bush) were allowed, over recent years, to crush the intifada, restore security to the West Bank, and set up the conditions for the economic boom that is now occurring. (There was one border post on the return leg of the journey, on the outskirts of Jerusalem, but the young female guard just waved me and the two Palestinians I was traveling with through.)
(emphasis mine)
As long as Israel is not allowed to defeat Hamas, Hamas will continue to attack. The refusal of the international community to allow Israel to finish the job, is one of the main reasons there is no peace.
Trading places at aushwitz
BBC profiles an Englishman who had been a POW during WWII, Denis Avey. Avey had been held in the POW camp adjoining Auschwitz and twice, switched clothes - his uniform for an inmate's rags - and places with a Jewish man in Aushwitz, Ernst Lobethall.
Lobethall survived Aushwitz, in part, because of his acquaintanceship with Avey.
He arranged for cigarettes, chocolate and a letter from Susana to be sent to him and smuggled them to his friend. Cigarettes were more valuable than gold in the camp and he hoped he would be able to trade them for favours to ease his plight - and he was right.Mr Lobethall traded two packs of Players cigarettes in return for getting his shoes resoled. It helped save his life when thousands perished or were murdered on the notorious death marches out of the camps in winter in 1945.
Think about that. A pair of shoes saved his life! Lobethall moved to the States and, according to the article, lived a long life. Denis Avey is still alive and recently met Lobethall's sister Susana, who had escaped to England before the war.
Quite an extraordinary man.
Crossposted on Yourish.
America's pro-israel consensus
Barry Rubin observes that American support for Israel is headed in a positive direction. Now for those who have an opinion the ratio of those who favor Israel over the Palestinians is now
Wait a minute, though. Pew says regarding the overall figure (51-12), "These numbers have changed little in recent years." But that's just flat wrong.In fact, in 1990 the figures were 34 percent support for Israel and 13 percent for the Palestinians. So here's the incredible story that Pew not only left out but denied:
Since 1990 backing for the Palestinians has remained the same low number, while sympathy for Israel has gone up from 34 to 51, a rise of 50 percent!
This is extraordinary.
The Jewish Virtual Library has been Gallup's polling on Israel for quite a while. And Pew, in this release from 2006, shows its polls over a number of years. Both pollsters show a ratio that recently ranges between 3 and 4 to 1, favoring Israel. (Pew framed its results that Americans are out of touch with the rest of the world.) Note that Pew and Gallup have slightly different numbers and that Gallup's numbers are more variable.
What would account for the recent surge in pro-Israel opinion? Prof Rubin answers:
Presumably, the public understands that Israel tried sincerely to make peace and was turned down by the other side; that radical Arab nationalism and militant Islamism hate America for lots more reasons than its support of Israel; an understanding about the origins of terrorism; a grasp of the threat from Iran (quite visible in other parts of the poll); and many other factors. In short, it is a victory for common sense.
It's worth observing two things here.
1) Given that being pro-Israel is an American position - not specifically a Jewish one - it explains why J-Street insists on calling itself pro-Israel despite consistently taking anti-Israel positions: if it claimed to be anti-Israel, it would have an even smaller constituency than it has now. J-Street's claims that it represents a significant portion of American public opinion is dubious.
2) Those who insist that America's generally pro-Israel foreign policy is distorted by Jewish influence (h/t Omri on Twitter), are mistaken. America's pro-Israel sentiment is not exclusively Jewish. It represents a wide consensus in America, except among self-identifying liberals.
Crossposted on Yourish.
December 6, 2009
Jewish blogging this week (and last)
The first lady of the Jewish blogosphere, Batya, hostesses this week's Haveil Havalim. Due (in part) to technical difficulties, she linked to titles. You can figure out the bloggers. Nicely done.
The post about saving water is excellent advice (illustrated) even if you don't live in Israel!
Blogcarnival, which had become a necessary tool for blogging has been on the fritz recently. So Batya is offering to mentor potential carnival hosts. Please check out her post for details.
I've been remiss in mentioning the latest Kosher Cooking Carnival that was posted a week and a half ago.
And I also have to mention last week's Haveil Havalim which was posted at Torat Yisrael.
Blog carnivals are the results of much hard by their hosts/hostesses. Check them out, you'll be glad you did.
Council speak 12/06/09
The council has spoken.In the interest of saving time, I've stoppped writing extensively about the each week's entries. However I want to bring your attention to The Glittering Eye's entry this week. Though the watchers council is largely a political group, some of the best entries have been personal stories, such as The Glittering Eye's, the Razor's reflections on his mother in law's death or the Colossus of Rhodey's memories of time spent as an exchange student. JoshuaPundit, though he didn't submit it to the weekly vote, wrote a great piece about being forced to flee a wildfire. So come to the Watcher's council to learn about politics, stay to learn about life.
Council Submissions
- First place with 2 1/3 points! - Mere Rhetoric - Leaked Global Warming Docs: "Publicity Machine" Used To Manipulate Journalists And Intimidate Scientists
- Second place with 1 2/3 points - The Glittering Eye - The Lessons
Non-Council Submissions
- First place with 3 points! - Victor Davis Hanson - Dithering And Trashing America
- Second place with 2 points - Patrick O'Hannigan/ American Spectator blog - The Community Organizer In Chief
December 4, 2009
Look Who's Benefiting From The Global Economic Slump: Israel--And The West Bank
I remember for years how the Israeli economy was a joke--how the currency was constantly being devalued, how converting your dollars into shekels provided you what seemed like a small fortune.
Things are different now.
Very different--today, the Israeli economy is no longer a joke.
As for the US economy, The Wall Street Journal reports:
After years of a brain drain from the region, and despite the lack of a peace settlement, by the end of this month about 4,000 North American Jews will have immigrated to Israel this year, an increase of 33% over 2008 and the most in one year since 1973, according to Nefesh B'Nefesh, an organization that oversees and assists with immigration to Israel from North America.
Immigrants to Israel often have a longstanding desire to move, but the economic crisis has pushed them to make the jump this year, said Danny Oberman, executive vice president of Israel operations for Nefesh B'Nefesh. "The economy has a lot to do with it," Mr. Oberman said.
...Israel's economy, fueled mainly by the software, biomedical, weapons-manufacturing and diamond sectors, has grown at least 4% a year from 2004 to 2008. And Israel has a lower unemployment rate than the U.S., at 7.8%, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics, next to 10.2% in October in the U.S. The Bank of Israel has raised interest rates twice since August, to its current level of 1%, at a time when banks around the world are cutting rates or leaving them low.
...In Israel, North American immigrants are making significant contributions to the economy, according to a recent study by consulting firm Deloitte Information Technologies Israel Ltd. U.S. immigrants who came between 2002 and 2008 have contributed directly 989 million shekels ($262 million) to the Israeli economy, the study said.
This is of course great news, that at a time that the world economy is suffering, Israel is available as a source of employment and financial security.
According to the article, Israel is not the only one to offer a financial refuge:
The crisis is also having an impact on the West Bank, which is seeing the return of hundreds of Palestinians, mostly from the Persian Gulf, looking for work as the economy there sours. The West Bank economy -- separate from Israel's -- is expected to grow 5% in 2009.
No official figures are available yet for how many Palestinians have made the move, but the International Monetary Fund is planning to study the issue over the next month.
"The economic crisis worked to our advantage," said Bashar al-Masry, a Palestinian real-estate developer overseeing an $800 million project to build a new Palestinian city north of Ramallah. "We're seeing more and more people willing to come back."
This is also good news, indicating that Netanyahu's idea of boosting the Palestinian economy and building an infrastructure before talk of a second Palestinian state is both practical and doable.
This development is not surprising--I noted this in previous posts:
- "Bombs in Gaza, Parties in Ramallah" (July 30, 2008)
- Ramallah And Jenin: Formerly Terrorist Strongholds--Now Developing Economic And Cultural Centers (June 23, 2009)
- Netanyahu's Stress On Economic Peace Plan Being Validated In West Bank (July 17, 2009)
- Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank Do Their Best Work When Abbas Sits and Does Nothing (August 27, 2009)
One significant difference between the Israeli and West Bank economies is that Israel has benefited from the Arab boycott--being forcibly excluded from Dubai has been a blessing that has shielded Israel from the economic disaster there. The same cannot be said about the West Bank:
Palestinian Minister of National Economy Hassan Abu-Libdeh cautions that the Palestinian economy might ultimately suffer from the downturn in Dubai, because many Palestinian families rely on remittances sent from relatives working there. Oussama Kanaan, IMF representative in the West Bank and Gaza, said Palestinian remittances made up 10% of Palestinian gross domestic product in 2008. Income from Palestinians working in Israel makes up an additional 12% of Palestinian GDP.
Any impact of lower remittances would most likely be softened if those workers find work in the West Bank. With a building boom under way in Ramallah and other Palestinian cities, fueled partly by international aid money totaling $1.7 billion in 2008, many returning from Dubai are finding jobs.
If the West Bank economic turnaround is the real thing, they are going to have to be able to sustain this economic stability without excessive aid--but in the meantime, the West Bank is enjoying an economic miracle that harkens back to the 1970's (see Palestinian Refugees Get A Chile Reception)
As Israel continues its development from a refuge of last resort to a home of first choice, the increased economic stability of the West Bank can only be a benefit--to both Palestinian Arabs and to Israelis alike, as a process towards a real peace becomes possible.
UPDATE: Middle East analyst Tom Gross gives a more personal description of what is going on in the West Bank, based on what he saw there:
I had spent that day in the West Bank's largest city, Nablus. The city is bursting with energy, life and signs of prosperity, in a way I have not previously seen in many years of covering the region.
As I sat in the plush office of Ahmad Aweidah, the suave British-educated banker who heads the Palestinian Securities Exchange, he told me that the Nablus stock market was the second best-performing in the world so far in 2009, after Shanghai. (Aweidah's office looks directly across from the palatial residence of Palestinian billionaire Munib al-Masri, the wealthiest man in the West Bank.)
Later I met Bashir al-Shakah, director of Nablus's gleaming new cinema, where four of the latest Hollywood hits were playing that day. Most movies were sold out, he noted, proudly adding that the venue had already hosted a film festival since it opened in June.
Wandering around downtown Nablus the shops and restaurants I saw were full. There were plenty of expensive cars on the streets. Indeed I counted considerably more BMWs and Mercedes than I've seen, for example, in downtown Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.
And perhaps most importantly of all, we had driven from Jerusalem to Nablus without going through any Israeli checkpoints. The government of Benjamin Netanyahu has removed them all since the Israeli security services (with the encouragement and support of President George W. Bush) were allowed, over recent years, to crush the intifada, restore security to the West Bank and set up the conditions for the economic boom that is now occurring. (There was one border post on the return leg of the journey, on the outskirts of Jerusalem, but the young female guard just waved me and the two Palestinians I was traveling with, through.)
The shops and restaurants were also full when I visited Hebron recently, and I was surprised to see villas comparable in size to those on the Cote d'Azur or Bel Air had sprung up on the hills around the city. Life is even better in Ramallah, where it is difficult to get a table in a good restaurant. New apartment buildings, banks, brokerage firms, luxury car dealerships and health clubs are to be seen. In Qalqilya, another West Bank city that was previously a hotbed of terrorists and bomb-makers, the first ever strawberry crop is being harvested in time to cash in on the lucrative Christmas markets in Europe. Local Palestinian farmers have been trained by Israeli agriculture experts and Israel supplied them with irrigation equipment and pesticides.
A new Palestinian city, Ruwabi, is to be built soon north of Ramallah. Last month, the Jewish National Fund, an Israeli charity, helped plant 3,000 tree seedlings for a forested area the Palestinian planners say they would like to develop on the edge of the new city. Israeli experts are also helping the Palestinians plan public parks and other civic amenities.
Outsiders are beginning to take note of the turnaround too. The official PLO Wafa news agency reported last week that the 3rd quarter of 2009 witnessed near-record tourism in the Palestinian Authority, with 135,939 overnight hotel stays in 89 hotels that are now open. Almost half the guests come from the U.S or Europe.
Palestinian economic growth so far this year--in a year dominated by economic crisis elsewhere--has been an impressive 7% according to the IMF, though Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayad, himself a former World Bank and IMF employee, says it is in fact 11%, partly helped along by strong economic performances in neighboring Israel.
He concludes with a point that counters the rush to create a second Palestinian state, no matter what. Gross notes:
Israelis and Palestinians may never agree on borders that will satisfy everyone. But that doesn't mean they won't live in peace. Not all Germans and French agree who should control Alsace Lorraine. Poles and Russians, Slovenes and Croats, Britons and Irish, and peoples all over the world, have border disputes. But that doesn't keep them from coexisting with one another. Nor--so long as partisan journalists and human rights groups don't mislead Western politicians into making bad decisions--will it prevent Israelis and Palestinians from doing so.
by Daled Amos
Two former speech writers evaluate the president's speech
David Frum takes Charles Krauthammer to task for criticizing President Obama for not being Churchillian in his speech about the "surge" in Afghanistan.
What nobody pauses to explain is why it would be desirable for Obama to have sounded like Churchill.Churchill's great speeches of 1940-41 were delivered at the most desperate moment in his country's history. Their grandeur suited the uniquely fateful occasion. But let's please underscore that word "uniquely."
America's situation in Afghanistan in 2009 in no way resembles that of Britain in 1940. The problem is not that we confront some overwhelming adversary - or that key leaders are fearfully contemplating capitulation to a new world empire. The problem is that a lot of Americans doubt whether success in Afghanistan is worth the price it is likely to cost.
President Obama's challenge is to persuade the country that Afghanistan is worth it. A grand Churchillian oration would be utterly counter-productive to that end. Imagine that Obama had delivered to the West Point cadets an updated version of the tremendous Churchillian words:
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
The television audience would have wondered: Has this man lost his mind? A phrase like "however long and hard the road may be" only raises the awkward question: Wait a minute - if it is going to be as hard and long as all that, maybe we should just forget this whole faraway war before it revs up.
In his op-ed today, Krauthammer, though, makes it clear that what he wanted from the President was coherence:
The quotes are from President Obama's West Point speech announcing the Afghanistan troop surge. What a strange speech it was -- a call to arms so ambivalent, so tentative, so defensive.Which made his last-minute assertion of "resolve unwavering" so hollow. It was meant to be stirring. It fell flat. In August, he called Afghanistan "a war of necessity." On Tuesday night, he defined "what's at stake" as "the common security of the world." The world, no less. Yet, we begin leaving in July 2011?
Does he think that such ambivalence is not heard by the Taliban, by Afghan peasants deciding which side to choose, by Pakistani generals hedging their bets, by NATO allies already with one foot out of Afghanistan?
The importance of decisive is this:
No one expected Obama to do a Henry V or a Churchill. But Obama could not even manage a George W. Bush, who, at an infinitely lower ebb in power and popularity, opposed by the political and foreign policy establishments and dealing with a war effort in far more dire straits, announced his surge -- Iraq 2007 -- with outright rejection of withdrawal or retreat. His implacability was widely decried at home as stubbornness, but heard loudly in Iraq by those fighting for and against us as unflinching -- and salutary -- determination.
In this battle of former speechwriters, I think that Krauthammer has the better argument.
Demjanjuk the doubtful?
At the end of a Bloomberg News report about the Demjanjuk trial in German, there's a paragraph that reads:
His death sentence and conviction were overturned by Israel's Supreme Court in 1993, saying there was reasonable doubt that he served at Treblinka. Demjanjuk returned to the U.S., regaining his citizenship. In 2002, a court again revoked it over his alleged role at Sobibor.
This doesn't quite tell the whole story as Judge Alex Kosinski explained in Sanhedrin II:
What then troubled the court? Long after the trial, documents were obtained from the KGB'S files that contained statements of other Treblinka guards referring to the operator of the gas chamber as Marchenko; some gave a physical description that did not fit Demjanjuk; one noted that this person was known as Ivan the Terrible. The Israeli Supreme Court recognized that these documents were far less reliable than the proof the attorney general offered. The statements were taken by the KGB, never famous for adhering to Western notions of procedural regularity; the declarants were not subject to cross-examination or impeachment; there was no way of knowing how these statements were produced or whether they were authentic, making it hard "to rule out theoretical possibilities of tampering with the evidence in full or in part." It is highly doubtful an American court would have admitted the statements had they been presented at trial, much less on appeal.Even if the statements were admitted and believed, the Israeli Supreme Court recognized that nothing in them foreclosed the possibility of successive operators of the gas chamber named Ivan--one Demjanjuk, the other Marchenko. Nor was it out of the question that Demjanjuk, for whatever reason, called himself Marchenko at the time. The court noted that the statement of Dudek, the tavern-keeper, supports this hypothesis, as does the fact that Demjanjuk falsely listed his mother's maiden name as Marchenko in his U.S. visa application. The court nevertheless felt it could not dismiss the KGB statements and could not come up with a satisfactory explanation for their existence. These statements, the court concluded, established a reasonable doubt about whether Demjanjuk was Ivan the Terrible.
In reaching this conclusion, the court adopted a standard much more rigorous than that normally employed in the United States. An appellate court here would look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and ask itself whether a rational jury could have convicted; it would reverse only if the evidence absolutely required acquittal. This standard recognizes that not all the evidence presented in a criminal trial will fit into a neat, consistent pattern. In figuring out what happened, juries often discard pieces of the puzzle that don't match up, such as testimony from the defendant's mother that they were home together watching T.V. on the night of the crime. Such evidence certainly can create a reasonable doubt, but it can also be rejected as too improbable.
What the Israeli Supreme Court looked for here--and did not find--was "an additional layer of evidence," something to explain away or refute the statements from the KGB files. Because the statements came into the record with none of the tethers that normally tie proof to the real world--no opportunity to cross-examine, no proof of authenticity, nothing at all that would make them reliable enough to be admitted under ordinary circumstances--it became virtually impossible for the prosecution to deal with them. Their very unreliability made them immune to attack.
The reasonable doubt resulted from the Israeli Supreme Court applying an extremely rigorous standard to evidence produced after the trial. This wasn't a typical reasonable doubt.
Crossposted on Yourish.
December 3, 2009
Pee-eu
The EU is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. (Not that that's anything new.) Howard Schneider of the Washington Post reports in Israel decries proposed E.U. stance on East Jerusalem:
Israel on Tuesday criticized a proposed statement by the European Union recognizing East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state -- part of the country's growing resistance to efforts to pressure it into reaching a peace deal with the Palestinians in the absence of direct, U.S.-sponsored talks.
The article also acknowledges:
Although Europe has long acknowledged Palestinian claims on Jerusalem -- and, like the United States and others, does not recognize Israel's annexation of the city's Arab neighborhoods after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war -- a direct call for a division of the city would take that policy a step further, according to European and Israeli officials.The draft text does not include reference to any part of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and was condemned by Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor as "very harmful." The statement "will not help to promote the peace process," Palmor said. "It will only make the European Union's position more marginal and less influential."
(emphasis mine)
This is the EU's policy on Jerusalem:
The EU policy on Jerusalem is based on the principles set out in the UN Security Council Resolution 242 , notably the impossibility of acquisition of territory by force. The EU opposes measures which would prejudge the outcome of the Permanent Status Negotiations, consigned to the third phase of the Road Map, such as actions aimed at changing the Palestinian character of East Jerusalem.The economic and social development of East Jerusalem has seriously been affected by its exclusion from the Palestinian Authority's development scheme laid out in the Oslo Accords and by the second Intifada, during which East Jerusalem has been effectively cut off from Palestinian communities and institutions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Of course, as with the UN the EU's position effectively endorses the acquisition of territory by force - as long as it involves displacing Jews. For example, here's a comparison between how Jordan in 1949 (in violation of the armistice agreement) and Israel in 1967 treated holy sites.
Jordan destroyed ancient synagogues in the Old City's Jewish quarter:• From the period of 1948 to 1967, Jordan demolished 58 synagogues in Jerusalem's Old City.
• All but one of the ancient synagogues in the Old City were demolished and ravaged during this time by the Jordanians.
Jews had absolutely no access to the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site:
• On April 3, 1949, Israel and Jordan signed an Armistice Agreement. One of the conditions of the GAA was that a special committee would be formed to make arrangements for safe movement of traffic between Jerusalem and the Mount Scopus campus of Hebrew University, as well as free access to Holy Places. The Jordanians, by denying access to Jews to enter the Old City and Judaism's holiest sites, directly violated the GAA.• Under the Jordanian control of East Jerusalem, Jews were denied access to the Western Wall and Temple Mount. Likewise, in Hebron, Jews were not allowed to enter the Tomb of the Patriarchs and other holy places in Bethlehem.
• Similarly, during Jordanian rule (and eventual annexation) of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967, Israeli Christians and Muslims were also barred from their own respective Holy Places.
Muslim waqf now controls workings of Temple Mount with important mosques, not Israelis:
• As a result of the Six Day War in 1967, Israel recovered the Old City and the entire Jordanian-held territory west of the Jordan River.• Almost instantaneously, 19-year-old barriers once separating Jerusalem were removed so that all peoples of all religions could be allowed access to their holiest sites.
• To assure that any member of a respective religion will no longer be denied access to their holiest sites, the Knesset passed a law on June 27, 1967, guaranteeing free access to everyone and determining punishment for the desecration or denial of entry.
• From 1967 onward, the Muslim Waqf Administration is responsible for the al-Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the Rock and all other mosques within Jerusalem.
o On several occasions, those praying at al-Aqsa then began pelting the Jews praying below at the Western Wall with stones and bricks.
o As a result, when tensions are high, Israel is occasionally forced to limit temporarily the age of those entering the Temple Mount compound for Friday prayers.
• As for other communities, Christians are placed in charge of administering their own holy sites, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Ministry of Religious Affairs of Israel is in charge of the Western Wall and other Jewish holy sites.
Much of Arab East Jerusalem is Arab because the Jordanians removed the Jews from those areas by force. The EU's position is to validate that.
But that's not the only hypocrisy in play here. Elder of Ziyon observes:
Isn't it interesting that the same people who keep telling Israel that the separation fence is as awful as the Berlin Wall are insisting that Jerusalem be cut in half...just like Berlin was?
Treppenwitz sees a silver lining in an approach that even alienates Tzipi Livni.
Personally, I couldn't possible care less what the world wants Israel to do. If we've learned only one thing during the short history of our country, it is that we are the only ones who will ever have our best interest at heart.But more importantly, I honestly feel that the only thing that has a prayer of unifying the Jewish people (or at least unifying those living in Israel) is for nearly all of us to be labeled illegitimate by the international community.
Do you remember that climactic scene near the end of 'Spartacus' where the recaptured rebel slaves are asked to identify Spartacus in return for leniency? In a show of unity, they all began shouting "I am Spartacus!"... even though they knew it might very well cost them their lives?
Well, I have a fantasy about the world finally showing some honesty about their hate of Israel and demanding that Israel return to the Partition Plan borders in order to appease the 'downtrodden' Arabs.
And when that happens, people from Kiryat Gat, Ramle, Beer Sheva, Ashdod, Jerusalem, Beit Shemesh, Modi'in, Nahariya, Ashqelon, Afula, Beit She'an, and other vibrant, thriving Israeli cities, will rise up with one voice and shout, "I am from Gilo!... and my legitimacy is not a question for my enemies and their supporters to decide!"
As the world's antipathy to Israel continues to be manifest by its double standards and distortions, is he right? Are we reaching a point where international enmity will encourage unity in Israel?
Crossposted on Yourish.
It's The Law: Obama Cannot Accept Nobel Peace Prize (with Updates)
On December 10, the Nobel Awards will be handed out.
Tad Armstrong, a lawyer and founder of ELL Constitution Clubs (www.ellclubs.com), writes in today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the Nobel Peace Prize is not Obama's to keep:
Congratulations, Mr. President, but if you care about the rule of law, you'll have to fork over the Nobel Peace Prize within 60 days of accepting it next week. Contrary to Mel Brooks' pronouncement in "History of the World Part I," it's not always good to be the king. It's impossible if you are an American president.
Article I of the Constitution states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."
Clearly, the presidency is both an office of "profit" and of "trust" and the prize package (including 1.4 million clams) is included in the terms "present" or "emolument." Therefore, a sitting president cannot accept it from a "King, Prince or foreign State" without the consent of Congress.
While the Prize comes from the private Nobel Foundaation, Alfred Nobel left instructions in his will that winners would be selected by a "committee of five" appointed by the Parliament of Norway. There is no question that the intent of Article I and a 1966 law passed by Congress is such that this prize is "from a foreign State."
What does "consent of Congress" mean? It could be argued that there must be specific consent of Congress
for this prize to be accepted, which Congress has not provided because, no doubt, most of its members don't have a clue it is constitutionally required.
But in 1966, Congress passed a law dealing with the receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations, including those that fall into the lap of a sitting president. That alone would bar the president from accepting the prize.
That law, now Section 7342 of the U.S. Code, provides that unless Congress provides specific consent to the president to accept the prize and changes the rules for its disposition, the prize must be accepted "on behalf of the United States of America" and the $1.4 million must be turned over to the Treasury.
Not that Congress would deny Obama his Nobel Prize.
Right?
UPDATE: The Washington Post addressed this issue back in October, and noted why the cases of presidents Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were different:
Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, clearly stipulates: "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."
The award of the peace prize to a sitting president is not unprecedented. But Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson received the honor for their past actions: Roosevelt's efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War, and Wilson's work in establishing the League of Nations. Obama's award is different. It is intended to affect future action. As a member of the Nobel Committee explained, the prize should encourage Obama to meet his goal of nuclear disarmament. It raises important legal questions for the second time in less than 10 months -- questions not discussed, much less adequately addressed anywhere else.
The five-member Nobel commission is elected by the Storting, the parliament of Norway. Thus the award of the peace prize is made by a body representing the legislature of a sovereign foreign state. There is no doubt that the Nobel Peace Prize is an "emolument" ("gain from employment or position," according to Webster).
An opinion of the U.S. attorney general advised, in 1902, that "a simple remembrance," even "if merely a photograph, falls under the inclusion of 'any present of any kind whatever.' " President Clinton's Office of Legal Counsel, in 1993, reaffirmed the 1902 opinion, and explained that the text of the clause does not limit "its application solely to foreign governments acting as sovereigns." This opinion went on to say that the emolument clause applies even when the foreign government acts through instrumentalities. Thus the Nobel Prize is an emolument, and a foreign one to boot.
Second, the president has indicated that he will give the prize money to charity, but that does not solve his legal problem. Giving that $1.4 million to a charity could give him a deduction that would reduce his income taxes by $500,000 -- not a nominal amount. Moreover, the money is not his to give away. It belongs to the United States: A federal statute provides that if the president accepts a "tangible or intangible present" for more than a minimal value from any foreign government, the gift "shall become the property of the United States." [emphasis added]
UPDATE 2: Fox News reported back in October that 3 Congressmen said the same thing:
Brown-Waite, R-Fla., along with Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, claim the president is obligated under the Constitution to obtain Congress' approval before he formally accepts the prize.
Fox News has a copy of the letter they sent to Obama (see end of post), which is interesting because it explains Theodore Roosevelt's acceptance of the award differently than above. According to the letter, Roosevelt created a committee to hold the money in trust until after he had left office. Then, he received the consent of Congress to disburse the money to charities.
No mention of how Woodrow Wilson handled it.
UPDATE 3: David Bernstein at Volokh Conspiracty writes that Obama can accept the award, even according to the statute in question:
The check is not a "decoration" and is of much more than "minimal value." Employees may not accept gifts of more than minimal value. However, there are various exceptions, and the relevant one is that a gift may be accepted "when it appears that to refuse the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States, except that- (i) a tangible gift of more than minimal value is deemed to have been accepted on behalf of the United States and, upon acceptance, shall become the property of the United States." It would seem to be within the foreign policy discretion of President Obama to determine that refusing the Nobel check could cause offense, embarrassment, or an adverse effect on foreign relations.
Then, "Within 60 days after accepting a tangible gift of more than minimal value,...an employee shall- (A) deposit the gift for disposal with his or her employing agency; or (B) subject to the approval of the employing agency, deposit the gift with that agency for official use." Accordingly, it would appear that President Obama must turn the check over to the United States government, for official use. I have not researched whether there are regulations detailing precisely how gifts which a President receives are to be disposed. It would appear that President Obama cannot personally give the Nobel money to charity.
Thus, it seems clear that the statute already supplies the constitutionally-required congressional consent for President Obama to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, and no further action by Congress is needed, provided that President Obama signs the check over the government, as the statute requires.
Of course, 'accepting' the award and 'keeping' it are not the same thing now, is it?
by Daled Amos
