Yeshiva World News

[The following Op-Ed was written by Alan Dershowitz]

Iran’s recent attempt to ship arms to Hamas in Gaza is an act of war committed by the Iranian government against the Israeli government. The Israeli Navy seized the ship, loaded with weapons designed to kill Israeli civilians, and traced the weapons back to Iran. Nor is this the first act of war that would justify a military response by Israel under international law. Iran has sent other boatloads of anti personnel weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah. In addition, back in 1992, the Iranian leaders planned and authorized a deadly attack on Israel’s embassy in Argentina. That bombing, which was carried out by Iranian agents, constituted a direct armed attack on the state of Israel, since its embassy is part of its sovereign territory. Moreover, the Iranian government has publicly declared war on Israel by calling for it “to be wiped off the map.”

Under international law, these acts of war — known as Casus Belli — fully justify an Israeli armed response. Even the UN Charter authorizes a unilateral response to an armed attack. Providing weapons to a declared enemy in the face of an embargo has historically been deemed an armed attack under the law of war, especially when those providing the weapons intend for them to be used against the enemy’s civilians. So too is the bombing of an embassy.

Two other recent events enhance Israel’s right use military means to prevent Iran from continuing to arm Israel’s enemies. The recent disaster in Japan has shown the world the extraordinary dangers posed by nuclear radiation. If anybody ever doubted the power of a dirty bomb to devastate a nation, both physically and psychologically, those doubts have been eliminated by what is now going on in Japan. If Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, the next ship destined to Gaza might contain a nuclear dirty bomb and Israel might not intercept that one. A dirty bomb detonated in tiny Israel would cause incalculable damage to civilian life.

Moreover, the recent killings in Itamar of a family including three children, demonstrate how weapons are used by Israel’s enemies against civilians in violation of the laws of war. Even babies are targeted by those armed by Iran. Hamas praised the murders.

Israel has the right to prevent its civilians from being murdered by Iranian weapons, especially weapons of mass destruction. Iran would have no legal standing to protest a surgical attack on its nuclear facilities that are designing weapons that could be used to achieve Iran’s declared goal of wiping Israel off the map and killing millions of its citizens. The leaders of Iran have publicly declared that a nuclear exchange, killing millions of Jews and Muslims, would be acceptable to them because it would destroy Israel while only damaging Islam. A suicide nation cannot be deterred by the threat of retaliation. Israel’s only realistic option may be a preventive military strike of the kind it conducted against Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981. That surgical attack may have saved countless lives at the cost of one single casualty. By the way, Iran too tried to destroy Iraq’s nuclear reactor, but failed. Certainly Israel has the right to do what Iran itself tried to do — namely prevent a lethal enemy from developing weapons capable of mass murder of its citizens.

This is not to say that Israel should attack Iran’s nuclear reactors now. That it has the right to do so does not mean that it should not wait for a more opportune time. The law of war does not require an immediate military response to an armed attack. The nation attacked can postpone its counterattack without waiving its right. The military option should always be a last resort after all other efforts have failed. It may well be that efforts to permanently disable Iran’s nuclear computers will succeed. Although it is unlikely that economic sanctions will ever persuade Iran’s ideological zealots to end their nuclear weapons program, a combination of quasi military, tough economic and diplomatic sanctions may slow it down to a point where the military option can be postponed. But under no circumstances should the military option ever be taken off the table. Israel must preserve its ability to exercise its fundamental right of preventive self defense. If possible, it should act together with other allies. But if necessary, it has the right to act alone to protect its citizens. Nearly everybody hopes that it won’t come to that, but hope is not a policy. As George Washington cautioned in his second inaugural address, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”

Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!

(Source: Huffington Post)

[By: Michael Daly for the NY Daily News]

Gaze up the Hudson River and hope, hope, hope our regulators are right.

Hope they could not possibly be as wrong as the regulators in Japan who said their nuclear reactors could withstand any calamity.

Hope we never, ever have an out-of-control reactor just 35 miles north – a Chernobyl-on-the-Hudson.
We are assured the Indian Point nuclear plant, which has had its share of problems, is designed to shrug off an earthquake under a magnitude 6.1. That’s a bit above the most powerful one on record in New York – a 5.25 way back in 1884.

We are also told not to be unduly worried that scientists at Columbia University have discovered Indian Point is within a mile of where our region’s two most active fault lines intersect.

The 2008 paper reporting this discovery estimated the chances of a earthquake here measuring a potentially disastrous magnitude 7 are 1.5% over a 50-year period.

Those are very long odds, but as the lottery ads say, hey, you never know.

Can’t you just hear the Japanese regulators saying before their disaster, “What’s the chance of a 9 anyway?”

The Columbia paper noted Indian Point is located “closer to more people” than any other nuclear plant in America, at “clearly one of the least favorable sites in our area from an earthquake hazard and risk perspective.”

In other words, if the folks who built the plant had searched the whole region, they could not have found a worse spot.

Astonishingly, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission declined even to consider the newly discovered fault lines in reviewing the plant’s application to extend its operating license by 20 years.

“[The NRC] … has not permitted any new information to be used or old information on which the old licenses were based to be contested,” the paper noted.

The same agency quickly removed from its website after 9/11 a report estimating fatalities from a full meltdown at Indian Point for fear terrorists would find the information “advantageous.”

That report said a Chernobyl-on-the-Hudson would pose a dire threat to people as far as 500 miles away and necessitate the evacuation of 93 million Americans and Canadians for as long as a year.

After all the lies at Ground Zero, who would believe it was safe to return?

The mayor on Monday described Indian Point as “far away from New York City,” but you can bet that if a nuclear mishap like the ones in Japan struck it would suddenly seem just upriver.

How safe do you think it feels to be 35 miles from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant now there is the threat of an uncontrolled release of radiation into the air?

A spokesman for Indian Point’s owner, Entergy of New Orleans, Monday reported that the application to extend its license is “pretty far along,” including a safety evaluation whose requirements include hardening against the “postulated maximum earthquake” for the particular area.

If the extension goes through, Indian Point will continue providing a third of the city’s power. The two remaining hurdles are state permits involving the 2.5 billion gallons of water that pass through the plant each day, more than twice the water consumed by all five boroughs.

One permit concerns the temperature of the water after it passes through. The other concerns the fish and their eggs sucked into the 40-inch intake pipes.

Indian Point (above) may yet be shut down not because it poses a danger for millions of people, but because of some shad.

In the meantime, a mysterious pool of water on a floor at the plant led to the discovery last year of a leaking underground pipe feeding a backup cooling system.

And, a transformer explosion triggered a brief shutdown in November.

At least the area surrounding Indian Point finally has a properly functioning warning system after only three years of delays and screwups.

Of course the system’s 172 sirens are just a precaution.

A nuclear disaster could never happen here.

Just ask the regulators.

(Source: NY Daily News)

By Rav Aryeh Z. Ginzberg 
Chofetz Chaim Torah Center

Recently I was invited to give the keynote address at the annual dinner of a large kiruv organization. I was asked to offer a perspective on the events currently unfolding in the Middle East. By way of introduction to my topic, the speaker before me explained that the events unfolding before our eyes are so simple to explain that even a child understands what’s happening. We are in Chodesh Adar, when the story of Purim unfolded in the blink of an eye. We were threatened with Haman’s diabolical final solution for K’lal Yisrael, and within days salvation and victory occurred.

The speaker explained with utter confidence that this is the story of Purim revisited in the very same month of Adar. From one moment to the next, all our enemies are just falling away one by one. He stated that he has no doubt that soon Iran will follow the same path and then Mashiach will arrive. He then proclaimed in an emotional, high-pitched voice, “Ladies and gentlemen, take my word and prepare yourself, for Mashiach is right around the bend.” With that, he introduced me to address the large crowd with a deeper look at the events in the Middle East.

I have been introduced over the years in many different ways, but never did I have to stand up to speak immediately following an announcement that was made with the utmost confidence that Mashiach is just around the bend. How do you top that?

Desperately searching for an opening, I recalled a story that I heard from my good friend Rabbi Mordechai Kamenetzky a few months back. Years ago, there was a tremendous miracle that took place in Eretz Yisrael, and one particular chassidic rebbe made a public declaration explaining the reason why it happened. Reb Mordechai, who was a young man at the time, went to his grandfather, HaGaon Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, zt’l, and asked him what his thoughts were on why this happened. Reb Yaakov responded, “Er veist vi ich veist”—“He knows like I know!”

The important message that Reb Yaakov, zt’l, taught us all was that we can conjecture, we can guess, and we can even suggest; but we are never allowed to say with conviction that we understand what exactly is happening and what we can expect to happen in the days ahead. We are all familiar with the various sources in the Midrash and in the Zohar regarding the days of ikvisa d’Meshicha. We can learn them with great intensity and depth, and research all the commentaries, but we will never know if this is what the Midrash means.

Yes, of course we are mandated to believe with every fiber of our heart and soul in the coming of Mashiach and to believe that he can come at any moment. We are not only required to believe in him, but we are obligated to anticipate and long for his arrival. The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos teaches us that one of the primary questions that we will have to answer after 120, in the Olam HaEmes, is whether we were tzipisa l’yeshua—did we long for his coming?

However, to interpret current events as being the onset of Mashiach’s arrival is not within our ability and not within our rights. Over the last thousand years, there have been many times when it clearly seemed as if the Midrash was coming alive in front of their eyes. Yet those who were convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that this was it were disappointed. So it is a very dangerous and potentially devastating approach to have for oneself, let alone to share with others.

The Yalkut Shimoni (Yeshayah 59) relates the following:

“Rabbi Yitzchak said, at the time of the revelation of Mashiach, the kings of all the nations challenge one another. The king of Persia challenges the king of Arabia, and the king of Arabia goes to Aram to seek their counsel. The king of Persia arises again and lays waste the whole world, and all the nations of the world are distressed and frightened and fall on their faces and they are seized by pains like birth pangs. Yisrael too is distressed and frightened and asks, ‘Where shall we turn?’ And Hashem answers them, ‘My children! Do not be afraid. All that I have done, I have done only for your sake. What are you afraid of? The time of your redemption has come.”

How are we to interpret this Midrash? Doesn’t it sound like today when Persia, or Iran, is threatening the whole world with potential nuclear weapons and has actually threatened to use them against Eretz Yisrael? Aren’t Yidden throughout the world and in Eretz Yisrael truly frightened and distressed at these events exactly the way the Midrash describes? The answer is yes, it sounds like the Midrash is coming to life in front of us; but that’s the key word . . . it sounds like it, but we cannot say with any confidence or clarity that this is it.

The Chazon Ish, zt’l, was once asked by a person who suffered greatly during World Word II if the tzaros that the Jews suffered during the Holocaust were part of the chevlei Mashiach and also whether Mashiach’s arrival was therefore imminent.

The Chazon Ish replied, “Before a person sets out on a journey, he takes a map and marks off all the stops he plans to make along the way. Every time he reaches one of those stops, he checks to see how far he has already traveled and how far he has left to go. Although K’lal Yisrael was made aware when exiled that it would be necessary to pass a great many stops along the way to the final redemption, we were not told exactly how many such stops were planned for us. Of course, every tzarah we suffer means we have passed yet another stage of galus, but we know nothing of the Master Plan regarding the future.”

HaGaon Rav Chaim Kanievsky, shlita, was quoted in the chareidi press by one of his gabbaim that in response to the question from a relative whether these recent events that have shocked the world are the beginning of Milchemes Gog U’Magog, Rav Chaim replied, “It’s quite probable that any unrest that Hashem creates shows that Mashiach is coming and we need to become stronger and better prepared; but if it actually is, we cannot know.”

A friend who is a close student of the mashgiach of Yeshiva Torah Vodaas, Rav Moshe Wolfson, shlita, related to me that he spoke recently about the astonishing events of the past few weeks. He said, “The Midrash predicted the downfall of Yishmael in the days preceding the coming of Mashiach. The first step to that downfall is by the fall of Sar shel Yishmael, the protective malach of Yishmael. Once the Sar shel Yishmael falls, then the entire nation will fall as well. It would seem that events of the last few weeks can be interpreted that it has started to happen. That it all started in the month of Adar, the month that we celebrate the downfall of Haman, which took place in Persia, makes it a good time to increase our davening, our limud haTorah, and acts of chesed.” That was the mashgiach’s point. While it seems like things are unfolding the way the Midrash describes, we cannot say for sure, but we can and should be inspired to deepen our relationship with HaKadosh Baruch Hu at this opportune time.

The speaker before me, brimming with confidence, explained that, as in the story of Purim, all our enemies are falling away from one day to the next. Powerful enemies of the past, such as Mubarak, Qaddafi, et al., are being removed from the world stage in utter humiliation, just as Haman was removed in his day. How fortunate it would be for K’lal Yisrael if that is truly what’s happening, if that is Hashem’s Master Plan. But what if, chas v’shalom, this is only a harbinger of worse things to come? What if their replacements will be much worse and exhibit even more hatred of K’lal Yisrael than those that they replaced? What if our beloved Eretz Yisrael is now left unprotected from all sides, now even from the south?

We cannot predict events, but at the same time we are not here to just sit idly by and watch these events unfold. We need to daven with all our hearts that HaKadosh Baruch Hu bring an end to all the tzaros of K’lal Yisrael, both individual and communal. Let the New York Times and the think tanks spend their time and energies on trying to decipher the meaning of these events; our role and responsibility is to turn to Avinu Shebashamayim, just as Mordechai and Esther did 2,000 years ago, and ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu to bring the geulah.

I remember Rabbi Moshe Sherer, z’l, once relating at an Agudah dinner that during the Holocaust years there was much misinformation, at least in the beginning, as to what was really happening in Europe. One day they received a photo from the State Department of an old Jew having his beard shaved off by a Nazi soldier while his fellow soldiers were standing to the side and laughing. The photo deeply shocked and disturbed him, and he and his older cousin Reb Elimelech Tress, z’l, began to cry.

After a while, Rabbi Sherer remembered a vort that he saw from Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch, zt’l, on the pasuk that Avraham Avinu named his son Yitzchok; meaning that “he shall laugh . . . in the future.” Since all the letzonei ha’dor laughed at him in regard to Yitzchak’s birth, so the message was that when he becomes one of the Avos of K’lal Yisrael, then he will have the last laugh.

So, too, explains Rav Hirsch, Yitzchak is a symbol for K’lal Yisrael throughout history. We have been laughed at, mocked, and ridiculed for close to 2,000 years, but at the end we will have the last and final laugh.

This message brought comfort to Rabbi Sherer at that time and so too should it bring comfort to us. It’s Chodesh Adar; what an appropriate time it would be to have that last laugh. In the merit of our heartfelt tefillos, may it come speedily in our day.

As the budget dogfight continued in Washington on Friday, we finally heard some good news: the unemployment rate went down below the 9% mark, as employers in the private sector hired another 222,000 people on the payrolls. Unlike the disingenuous report in January that lowered the unemployment rate while delivering disturbing news about a drop of over a half a million people in the labor force, the February jobs report indicated that the size of the labor force increased by 60,000. However, as the Republicans and President Obama prided themselves and took credit for the positive report, we have much to worry about: the employment rate is still at a 58.4% low with only 64.2% in the work force – the lowest in 25 years. It’s a muffled recovery that has a long way to go. This also excludes those working part time – 8.3 million – who’d rather work full time. Yet, despite its slow response, the economy is growing as the unemployment rate is declining, and we must ensure that the recovery continues and doesn’t falter to become a double-dip recession.

A cure cannot be prescribed without identifying the illness, a faltering business cannot be amended without discovering the setback, and an economy cannot be boosted without recognizing the problem. Economists looked with concern at the recent economic downturn that confirmed unprecedented information. For the first time in history, techniques that were generally used to fix an economy in the time of a recession gave no results. Congress passed stimulus bills with trillions of dollars in spending together with bailout packages to boost the GDP, but it didn’t yield. The money supply was increased to record levels to raise price levels, as the Feds lowered interest rates and engaged in quantitative easing, but to no avail. The economy was in stalemate without the light at the end of the tunnel in sight.

Gross domestic product – the structure of an economy – has four divisions: personal consumption (sales and services), capital purchases and investments, government expenditures (excluding transfer payments) and net exports. A boost in either section advances the economy.  Thus, John Keynes claimed that the cure for a shaky economy is government intervention. However, as Congress and the Obama administration spent trillions of dollars to stimulate the economy making government spending more than 40% of the GDP, economists were wondering why it has no effect. As Ben Bernanke divulged into the monetarism school of thought, people were wondering whether the record low interest rate won’t worsen the economy in the long-run while it had little effect on stopping the recession. The government expenditure had virtually no effect as consumption and investment was crowding out. The question lingered as desperation grew.

The answer of course was confidence. John Keynes and Milton Friedman have answers to the economy but don’t have solutions to restore consumer confidence. As the Feds hoped to boost the money supply, businesses were stashing the cash in hiding hoping for better days. Instead of hiring, businesses put away reserves for more rainy days they were scared would come – it kept the economy deadlocked. The way to reinstate the economy was to restore confidence. At last, 63% of private-company executives said this month that they’re optimistic about the US economic prospects – compared to just 39% last year.

John Boehner and President Obama both hailed the extension of the tax-cuts as the reason for the positive jobs report. It was interesting to note that even President Obama gave his stimulus bills no credit in his weekly address. Yet, while the tax cuts might’ve had some effect on the jobs report, it is unlikely that it was the actual cause for the boost. No big change went into effect with the extension of tax cuts other than some temporary hiring; businesses won’t hire long-term employees because of a short-term extension of tax cuts. John Boehner said: “Removing the uncertainty caused by those looming tax hikes provided much-needed relief for private-sector job creators in America.” However, he too agreed that excessive government spending may have a negative impact on the economic recovery. While those on the left claimed that the Republicans seek to stall the recovery with the spending cuts, Chairman Bernanke largely disagreed on that notion and House budget Chairman Paul Ryan claimed that it would actually advance the recovery.

Paul Ryan has a point: the United States is broke. Spending money we don’t have is immoral and a formula to put a country further in decline. It is ironic that Bernie Madoff had to lecture the government about the Ponzi scheme it is running. It was like a pirate warning drunken sailors about the journey they are taking; nevertheless, it was a warning worth heeding. At the rate we are going, government spending will account for nearly 200% of our economy by the year 2040. It is the excessive spending for unsustainable programs that is stalling the recovery process. It only makes sense that the boost in consumer confidence comes after the GOP-led House opposed more government spending and proposed major cuts. Businesses know that more debt will lead to higher interest rates which will make investment more expensive. Saving their money or borrowing more at record low interest rates seemed viable to them – it would prepare them for the famine they dreaded.

The economic problem this time around isn’t just the fact that businesses aren’t spending – it is why they’re not spending. It is the monstrous government of red tape and record debt levels that is the cause. The recovery now lies in the hands of the lawmakers that won’t stop pandering to special interest groups and refuse to use the hatchet for entitlement programs. President Obama is right: a deal to extend the government for two weeks isn’t enough; we need a permanent “road map” to recovery. We must ensure that we continue cutting government and make it more effective.  President Obama promised to call the bluff of anyone who talks a good game on reducing the national debt but doesn’t act. We call on President Obama to hear his call and stop dithering. We call for his leadership to further boost consumer confidence and the economy.

Dave Hirsch is a political analyst and featured columnist. His opinions have been featured in numerous publications. He can be reached at davehrsch@gmail.com

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/contact.php

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)

The 111th Congress was one of reform and “change.” Democrats hail the previous Congress as “the most productive Congress” since 1964: Republicans, however, point out that it was also the most partisan Congress in decades. While the Democrats passed major overhauls and signature legislation, the Republicans dissented. The Democrats branded the GOP as “the party of no” as the Republicans blamed the Democrats for taking the country down the wrong path. They alarmed over a government-run healthcare system and outrageous spending that would lead to record debt levels. Indeed, it was dirty. The 111th Congress will forever be remembered as one of bickering. It is ironic that a President that ran with the mantra of a “uniter” led perhaps one of the most partisan Congresses in history, but this is the fact: Republicans claimed that they were largely shut out of the discussions as back-room sweet deals were made to pass controversial legislation.

Controversial it was. Throngs of protestors filled the streets in protest of the proposed legislation as town halls often turned into shouting matches; polls showed public disapproval to legislation that must be passed first to be understood thereafter. Businesses were scared that they are doomed with some of the bills – one that included a law requiring companies to issue a 1099 for every purchase above $600. Republicans led the fight against the President and the Democratic-led Congress as the White House pushed back. However, it wasn’t just the Republicans that fought; along them stood Democratic Congressmen who protested as well. The bills passed in a Congress largely dominated by Democrats but had bi-partisan opposition. Main Street and Wall Street alike were suspicious of an agenda that racketed up the national debt to unforeseen levels.

It passed, but it didn’t glide. Turbulence and many bumps in the road withheld the passing of Obamacare instantly. Republicans came out in public blasting the bill as they took to the podium and berated this controversial giant that is to become law. Some Democratic congressmen joined them in protest and voiced their opposition as well. Amendments were made and more sweets was handed out to garner more support – yet, the Republicans stood steadfast and presented concerns with the bill and stood in the way of its passing. Their vocal opposition paid-off: liberal Massachusetts elected a Republican to be the 41st vote against the bill. The Democrats, nevertheless, made a detour and rammed it down the throats of the American people. Statistics were doctored to fool the public about the effect it would have on the country and, most particularly, the national debt.

The Republicans became known as obstructionists to some with others even claiming that this was why the Democrats had a “shellacking” in the midterms. Yet, the people were upset at those bills and decided to go for real change; change that would lower the staggering debt, change that would repeal the government takeover and change that would begin balancing the budget and spend only what we have. The “red menace” had to be challenged and the warriors were elected to do just that. The debt that bankrupted state after state, piled up until the voters said enough is enough. Fiscal conservatives were overwhelmingly elected to State Houses all over the nation; they were to make this extreme spending come to a halt and make government working again.

In Wisconsin, a liberal leaning state which Barack Obama won by 56 percent to John McCain’s 42 percent, the tidal wave also came at full force. There too, the people were upset as they ousted Senator Russ Feingold, a three-term Democrat and liberal lion, in addition to replacing the Governor’s mansion with a moderate Republican. Governor Scott Walker faced a projected 3.3 Billion dollar deficit for the 2011-2013 budget. He was elected to cut and that’s exactly what he began to do immediately after his inauguration. The tax-and-spend liberals of course looked in horror as their sweet deals began suffering under the new Governor and fresh Republican majority. Their special interest groups feared that their lobby will be shut-out of the new discussions and negotiations; a plan was drafted – they would stop the Governor from enacting his “controversial” budget and legislation.

Democracy is at stake. It isn’t only the democracy in Egypt, Libya or elsewhere – it’s in the United States of America! The democratic process of our great nation is in peril. The very same procedure that the Founding Fathers foresaw for this great country is at risk. No longer can we trust our elected officials to do what’s good for us and decide on our behalf. In Libya democracy is withheld from the people through shells and bullets and here it is obstructed by lawmakers – people that were elected to vote, abstain or reject legislation legally and through debate – preventing legislators from reaching a quorum. Simply not showing up is in conflict with democracy and not the way to lead a government.

The Republicans didn’t flee the country to protest the controversial Obamacare – a bill that even Democrats don’t want to have contributed to themselves. Although a quorum in Congress is a simple majority, nevertheless, the GOP didn’t use methods to obstruct the democratic process; they did what they were elected to do. They didn’t flee: they showed up, took to the floor of the House and made their case against it. They explained to the people why they oppose the bill and got the public opinion on their side. They didn’t have to rely on protestors that were driven in from elsewhere by special interest groups (screaming Nazi – something the media won’t tell you) or falsify polls to show public disapproval to the bill – they showed up to work and worked hard to actually stop it.

As President Obama and the Democrats in Congress didn’t take the courage to lead, weren’t brave enough to touch politically toxic entitlement programs, and didn’t have the guts and audacity to do what is right for this country by slashing the budget while stopping the unsustainable programs, fiscal conservative governors around the nation took control and tried to set a new standard for a country at war with mountains of debt threatening to take it down. They were brave non-partisan individuals who knew that they’re putting their political career on the line. They weren’t scared to tell the people the truth they don’t like to hear – they were open and honest.

We hoped that the Democrats would take a lesson. Republicans were ready to cut form defense and were waiting for the Democrats to come to the table; yet, as the phone call was to come, the Democrats instead dispatched their troops to obstruct democracy in states where leadership reined. They didn’t stand up with courage to explain why stripping bargain right from public unions was not good for the taxpayers; they didn’t have an explanation – they fled instead. They created a stumble block for democracy and created a new standard of obstructionism. The message to the Democrats should be simple and unambiguous: If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

Dave Hirsch is a political analyst and featured columnist. His opinions have been featured in numerous publications. He can be reached at davehrsch@gmail.com

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)

In a scathing report, Democrat Congressman Pete Stark produced a report showing that for 2010, five major health insurers raked in a total of $11.7 billion in net profit, all of it on the backs of the poor and sick.

Indeed, to everyday Americans who are not aware how big some industries are, the $11.7 billion figure may come across as huge and perhaps outrages too. Likely for this very reason, Mr. Stark didn’t reveal some of the following relevant information regarding the 2010 profits of these five firms – United Health, Well Point, Aetna, Humana and Cigna:

·         While the five companies combined earned $11.7 billion in profit, governments collected a total of $6 billion in taxes from these companies.
·         The $11.7 billion in after-expense and after-tax revenue is from a total of $242.7 billion in income between the above five firms. Yes, of almost a quarter of a trillion dollars in business activity, the firms were left with only $11.7 billion in profit.
·         Dividing the above revenue, profit and tax bills in five, each company on average had $48.54 billion in revenue; only $2.34 billion in profit, yet governments – just by standing in the side – collected $1.2 billion from each of the firms.
·         Earning $11.7 billion out of $242.7 in revenue is a profit margin of 4.8%, compared to the 10-15 percent returns that index-funds connected to the DJIA, NASDAQ or S&P 500 gave for 2010.

The Stark report writes that 25-30 percent premiums of some health insurance plans were spent on administrative cost in 2010. But starting this year, the report notes, firms will be limited to spend only fifteen to twenty percent on administrative cost/profits collections. In other words, if the 4.8% profit margin is not poor enough, firms will be squeezed even more, and their thousands of workers – you know, workers are the ones that Democrats are always on the look out to protect – will likely need to see cuts and limitations in their compensation.

Any time Democrats scream about ‘billions in profits’ of Corporate America, note A) that the billions in profits mostly represent a fraction of the actual business activity and overhead. B) Government has its hand big time in the cookie charge too, so if they want to give back billions in premiums to Americans, governments can cut their tax rates on the corporations. C) If these attacking Democrats were to have investment consultants that produce for them only 4.8% a year in returns, these investors would likely be fired.

As a bonus, here is the breakdown of the above five health insurers and their business activity of 2010.

·         United Health had $94.15 billion in revenue (income); paid $2.74 billion in taxes, and was left with $4.63 billion in after expense/after tax profit.
·         WellPoint had  $58.80 billion in gross revenue; paid $1.46 billion in taxes, and was left with $2.89 billion in after expense/after tax profit.
·         Aetna had $34.76 billion in gross revenue; paid $624.7 million in taxes, and was left with $1.77 billion in after expense/after tax profit.
·         Humana had $33.86 in gross revenue; paid $650.1 million in taxes, and was left with $1.1 billion in after expense/after tax profit.
·         Cigna (in 2009) had $21.15 in gross revenue; paid (approximately) $526 million in taxes, and was left with $1.34 billion in after expense/after tax profit.

Contact yossi@yossigestetner.com and/or follow on Twitter @yossigestetner

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)

[The following Op-Ed was written by David Suissa]

Has the world ever witnessed such a radical and overnight transformation of one country? Have we ever seen a nation, in 18 short days, go from a place that represents darkness to one that represents hope, renewal and liberation?

I’m not talking about Egypt; I’m talking about Israel.

In the branding business, we have this thing called “truth transformation.” In a nutshell, it says that if your brand has “issues,” you can fix them only by finding a deep and meaningful truth. A legendary example is Pepsi, which made great headway against Coke by showing that “in a blind taste test, more people prefer the taste of Pepsi.”

Well, it turns out that in a blind taste test, more Arabs prefer the taste of Israel.

I’m not sure people realize yet the extraordinary nature of this transformation. Israel, the most maligned, boycotted and condemned country on the planet, the nation held perennially responsible for the frustrations of millions of Arabs across the Middle East, turns out to have what those frustrated Arabs are now clamoring for: freedom, human rights and a system that protects those rights.

Overnight, this brave and besieged little country has gone from demon to model – from being the curse of the Middle East to its potential cure. We may not see such a radical shift of perception again in our lifetimes.

And yet, hardly anyone is talking about it. I see two reasons. First, the hero country that ought to be promoting this transformation, Israel, is focused more on immediate security than on exporting its democratic gold to its neighbors. This is not unreasonable. Israel already has serious threats on its doorsteps – like Hamas and Hezbollah – and its deep wish is that the chaos of newfound freedom in Egypt will not result in a new security threat.

Second, and more important, the global forces that have worked for years to undermine Israel are now suddenly on the defensive, and they’re desperate to keep you focused on “big, bad Israel.” They can see the writing on the wall. The edifice that took them decades to build – making Israel global enemy No. 1 and the Palestinians the world’s glamour victims – is now in real danger of crumbling.

Just look at the facts. There are 330 million Arabs in the Middle East region who, according to Freedom House, live in countries considered “not free.” While those Arabs languished for decades in misery and oppression, where do you think the world concentrated its attention and its billions in aid? That’s right, on the Palestinian Arabs who represent less than 1 percent of that total.

And what did the world get in return? A split group of permanent victims who teach the hatred of Israel while refusing to make any real concessions for peace. Talk about a crummy deal.

That’s why I wouldn’t want to be with the Palestinian PR machine right now. They worked so hard to pull a Houdini and convince the world that Israel is the scourge of humanity and Palestinians the world’s biggest victims, and now look – millions of competing Arab victims come to Tahrir Square and steal the attention.

From now on, anyone who pushes for a boycott of Israel can and should be denounced as a hypocrite who couldn’t care less about Arab victims not connected with Israel. And good luck to anyone trying to claim with a straight face that pressuring Israel on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should remain the central mission of the world – not when millions of other Arab victims who have lived for so long under the “occupation” of brutal dictators are finally getting their voices heard.

And not when those Arab voices are craving the very freedom and human rights that Israel, with all its warts and imperfections, already offers.

It is also laughable now for peace-process junkies to claim that a three-state solution (Israel, Palestine and Hamastan) is “more urgent than ever,” and would help fix other Middle Eastern problems, like the threat of a nuclear Iran or bringing human rights to the Arab world.

Israel can surely keep chasing the dream of peace with Hamas and the Palestinians, which would be wonderful if it ever happened. But if the world is really serious about responding to the revolution of Tahrir Square, then the real urgency is to stop ignoring the 99 percent of Arab victims not named Palestinians.

In other words, instead of the narrow-minded “two-state solution” mantra that is repeated ad nauseam, the future of the Middle East should revolve around a more just and inclusive “22-state solution,” whereby the nations of the region would gradually be exposed to the liberating and dignifying values of democracy. Maybe the United Nations, instead of issuing another condemnation of Israel, can send a mission to the Jewish state to pick up some pointers on how they might introduce democratic institutions and economic prosperity to the rest of the Middle East.

I’m not holding my breath. The industry of maligning Israel is a deeply popular one, and the obsession with Palestinian victimhood is a global phenomenon. Still, the wrenching process of “truth transformation” has begun. The fact that the freest Arabs in the Middle East live in Israel is a truth that Israel’s enemies cannot bear. In the post-Tahrir Square era, more and more Arabs will come to see that Israel was never the enemy – but a model to aspire to.

Once the shock of that truth wears off, we’ll see how many will taste it.

David Suissa is the founder of OLAM magazine and a weekly columnist for the Los Angeles Jewish Journal. You can read his daily blog at suissablog.com and e-mail him at dsuissa@olam.org.

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)

The War of Independence, Sinai War, Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War, First Lebanon War, First Intifada, Second Intifada, Second Lebanon War, Gaza War: this is only a partial list of the wars and conflicts that have been afflicting the Israelis for the past six decades. This doesn’t include close to two hundred suicide bombings with close to one thousand killed and tens of thousands wounded. This excludes thousands of missile, rocket and shooting attacks that have killed many, while causing physical and psychological damage to hundreds of thousands. This leaves out the constant threat of Iran that looms on its citizens every day, the fear of yet another war or the fright those mothers and children live with, in fear of another murderous suicide attack. It is perhaps one of the longest conflicts in history; one that has already involved the entire world and one that has no light at the end of the tunnel – no solution in sight.

Ever since Ronald Reagan pursued democracy and made Israel America’s best friend, the American Presidents have largely tried to distinguish themselves as Israel’s friend in the White House. He drew the line in the sand after some US Presidents put intense pressure on Israel to give up its right of self-defense with some refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist (to some extent). Indeed, Israel has literally become a prerequisite for any President prior to taking office. President Obama visited Israel when he was the Democratic candidate as did McCain, and it has now become an unofficial primary state for the GOP candidates. Yet, peace is still farfetched as everyone scrambles to find a solution to the conflict. It has become the duty for every president to present a peace plan to end this ongoing fiasco once and for all.

President Carter perhaps foresaw Israel’s disintegration as the solution to the Mideast crisis. Following his mishap of replacing an American ally in Iran with an Islamic Radical regime, he felt that the region can use more of his “cure” to eliminate the “apartheid regime.” President Clinton didn’t seem to have a solution. He pushed for the Oslo Accords, an agreement that didn’t outline any milestone pact or solution for the conflict other than demanding Israeli concessions. President Bush, most particularly Condoleezza Rice, decided on a “Two State” solution – where two people would live side-by-side in peace and harmony. This resolution, often criticized by neoconservatives – even amongst his cabinet, never materialized as it didn’t make any sense. Finally, President Obama decided that he would shower Israel with some “tough love” – sometimes seen as outright hatred – to resolve this issue.

The United Nations forever had a similar way to Carter’s way of dealing with this problem: the destruction of Israel. As many liberals believe, Israel is evermore the obstacle. George Soros, Richard Goldstone and Mohamed Ahmadinejad have one thing in common – their hatred to the lone Jewish state. The UN Security Council has one solution ever since – condemn Israel. Whether it was a war Israel was waging against Hezbollah, rocket launchers in Gaza or a flotilla laden with arms from Turkey, Israel was rebuked for their response. However, Israel knew that it can rely on the United States’ veto power. It knew that America was protecting her from its enemies, and even with Jimmy Carter in the Oval Office it was relieved to know that it was out of harm’s way.

All that changed this time. Israel, for the first time in sixty years, feared a diplomatic embarrassment and humiliation with yet another resolution to be passed in the United Nation delegitimizing its “settlements” with the approval of the Obama administration. Israel has lost its best friend in the White House and felt once more like a sheep surrounded by seventy hungry wolves. Fortunately, Obama ultimately knew that he needed to stand by Israel. After criticism was aimed at him from the way he handled the Egyptian uprising and his overall treatment to Israel, Obama knew that he must support Israel to increase his chances for re-election. The US “regrettably“ had to veto the resolution only after Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, decried Israel’s cities and towns as illegitimate. It was a last minute reversal but a wake-up call to Israel at the same time: they have no friend in Washington.

Mitt Romney, a possible GOP presidential contender, immediately stood by Israel and criticized the administrations act against Israel. He claimed that Israel’s concessions of the past have been met by suicide attacks and rockets. “Isolated more than ever in the region, Israel must now contend with the fact that its principal backer in the world, the United States, is seeking to ingratiate itself with Arab opinion at its expense,” he exclaimed. This comes after Mike Huckabee, another possible contender for the presidency, reaffirmed his support for Israel in a recent interview. “It goes back to Isaac and Ishmael, and it’s not going to be changed by a couple of presidents or prime ministers,” he rightfully explained.

A strong Israel means a strong America. We need a beacon of light in the Middle East shining upon the other nations in the region to preserve our ideals. A democracy in the Middle East isn’t just another democracy; it is an oasis in the middle of a desert. It gives us the source of support and a base to fight those that dream evil against us. We must not just veto resolutions condemning our friends and allies – we must decry them. We must show them solidarity and be their backbone when others try to destroy them. We must learn a lesson from the past and learn that replacing an ally with an Islamic foe – anywhere – has catastrophic results. We messed up on Iran and most recently in Egypt; let us at least have a government in Israel on our side. We need a president that wants a stronger America; one that doesn’t alienate our friends and befriend our enemies. Obama should be rebuked for reversing US policy to make us weaker. Perhaps, he ought not just to read books on Ronald Reagan – but to take a lesson.

Dave Hirsch is a political analyst and featured columnist. His opinions have been featured in numerous publications. He can be reached at davehrsch@gmail.com

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)

[The following Op-Ed was written by Daniel Spigel]

Mayor Bloomberg is a phony. Allow me to explain why.

We all know that Mayor Bloomberg is obsessed with gun control. He is so obsessed that he recently went as far as sending two NYPD detectives 2,400 miles away to Arizona to purchase a gun illegally, and then make a media circus out of it. In fact, while he refuses to fill our potholes because he claims we don’t have the money, he spent over $100,000 on this “sting” operation that had one purpose – to get the Mayor press.

Mr. Mayor, who cares about Arizona when you’re not taking care of New York? According to the most recent FBI statistics, violent crime in New York City increased significantly in 2010 compared to data from 2009. Robbery went up 3.9 percent, aggravated assault increased 8.8 percent and murder rose 12.3 percent. Crime is spiraling out of control in NYC, but our Mayor felt that it was the correct decision to send NYPD Detectives to Arizona to buy guns!

What really send me over the edge, however, was this past Friday’s New York City bloodbath. No other words can describe the murderous actions of Maksim Gelman, as he went on a 28-hour killing spree – stabbing 8 people, murdering 3 of them, carjacking multiple vehicles at knife-point, and striking and killing a fourth man with a stolen vehicle. In total, eight people were stabbed. And guess what? Not one word from the honorable Mayor Bloomberg. Not a peep.

Mr. Mayor, your silence is deafening. Rest assured, if this murderous thug had committed the same crime using a gun, Bloomberg would have been on every national news network rambling about gun control. Every newspaper cover would have had Bloomberg pointing an angry finger and yelling bloody-murder about illegal guns. While the Mayor trolls the country for his gun agenda, knives apparently are not a concern.

This leaves me to conclude that Mayor Bloomberg is an insensitive, power-hungry autocrat who is only concerned with making headlines – not THIS CITY’S public safety.

Yes, Mayor Bloomberg is a phony.

Daniel Spigel is the founder of the Republican Association For Better Values, and has been a contributor to many news outlets.

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)

[The following Op-Ed was written by Reps. Anthony Weiner and Jason Chaffetz]

Going through the federal budget, you might not expect to find many things that a Democrat from a deep blue state and a Republican from a bright red one could agree to eliminate. The reality, however, is that there are some programs that both sides of the aisle can recognize don’t make the best use of taxpayer dollars.

Most budget debates focus on the biggest expenditures, which are the hardest to cut. Either they are vital to many Americans (Medicare) or they are necessary programs, such as defense spending or interest payments to service the national debt.

Just because Republicans and Democrats don’t agree on whether or how to cut those major programs doesn’t mean that we’re bereft of options. There is a lot of excess weight out there in the form of smaller budget items that can no longer be justified.

For example, the subsidy program for mohair farmers. The World War II-era rationale to subsidize wool for military uniforms ended with the use of synthetics in 1958, but the program lived on. Cutting this program would save $1 million per year and be a symbolic victory.

Another waste of taxpayer money: the United States Institute of Peace. The USIP is a fine think tank that, according to its website, “provides the analysis, training and tools that prevent and end conflicts, promotes stability and professionalizes the field of peacebuilding.”

The USIP has a role to play in our modern world, but the level of taxpayer support that this private organization receives is excessive. Since 1985, taxpayers have forked over more than $720 million (inflation adjusted). That has included support for a gleaming new 150,000 square foot office building in the shadow of that other taxpayer-supported institution devoted to peace: the State Department.

President Obama has applauded recent pledges by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to eliminate billions in unnecessary defense spending, but these cuts feel like a tough sell when we’re using taxpayer money to fund a private organization. Our defense and diplomatic establishment has helped promote stability for hundreds of years, and it should be the place we invest taxpayer dollars intended to further peace.

The USIP is a case study in how government waste thrives. The idea began during the Cold War as a modest proposal with $4 million in seed money. But the organization received government funding year after year essentially because it had been funded the year before—and because it had important allies. The late Sen. Ted Stevens air-dropped (via conference committee) $100 million for the USIP in 1985, despite the absence of any allocation in the spending bills already passed by the House and Senate that year.

In 2010, the USIP received $34 million in operating expenses from Congress, $17 million in transfers and reimbursements from the State Department and the Pentagon, and another $15 million from Congress for its new building. According to its own estimate, the institute expects about $54 million from taxpayers in 2011.

Although there have been no oversight hearings on the USIP since 1985, the organization’s value is not in question—only its need for taxpayer funding is. Similar organizations manage to do good work without taxpayer money, and the USIP already raises millions from corporate and private interests, just as other think tanks do.

It’s also time to examine other misuses of taxpayer money that have proliferated year after year through the same congressional inattention. Once programs have fulfilled their purpose (or have failed to do so), we should cut them.

Mr. Chaffetz is a Republican representative from Utah. Mr. Weiner is a Democratic representative from New York.

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)

[The following Op-Ed was written by David Suissa]

Dear Mr. Soros:

I saw that you wrote in The Washington Post last week that Israel is the “main stumbling block” to democratic progress in Egypt. You also said that “as a committed advocate of democracy and open society, I cannot help but share in the enthusiasm that is sweeping across the Middle East.”

I’m writing to let you know that I share your enthusiasm for democracy and open societies, but I need to challenge your view of Israel.

For many years now, I have been struck by the tragic absence of basic freedoms and human rights throughout the Middle East. You might have seen the latest findings from the independent Freedom House, which reports that “The Middle East and North Africa remained the region with the lowest level of freedom in 2010, continuing its multiyear decline from an already-low democratic baseline.”

They define freedom based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Of the 18 countries in the Middle East and North Africa, 14 countries (population: 330 million) are “not free,” 3 countries (population: 39.3 million) are “partly free” and only one country (population: 7.6 million) is “free.”

That free country is Israel.

Since you are a world-famous liberal and the founder of the Open Society Foundations (it works “to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens”), I figured that Israel’s democratic success would be a source of pride. I hoped that you might look at the turmoil in the Middle East and then point with pride to Israel and say: “Hey, look, there’s an exception! This is what the protesters in Egypt are screaming for – their rights and freedoms, just what Israel already offers!”

But you didn’t do that. Instead, you actually called Israel “the main stumbling block” to the hopeful evolution of an Egyptian democracy. Not just a stumbling block, but the main stumbling block!

This, with due respect, is ludicrous. As if Israel has the magical power to “block” the evolution of democracy in Egypt or any other country, even if it wanted to.

And as if some real and concrete stumbling blocks aren’t already there in Egypt, like a history of anti-democratic regimes that have ruled the country since before Israel was born; or the absence of myriad democratic institutions that are essential to the flourishing of a civil society; or the widespread dissemination of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism and anti-anything Western; or the fact that the only significant organized group in the country – the Muslim Brotherhood – is enamored more with the theocracy of Shariah law than the democracy of Thomas Jefferson.

Aren’t these “made in Egypt” stumbling blocks big enough for you? You still had to find a way to squeeze in Israel as the main culprit?

In a sense, I see where your obsession with blaming Israel comes from. It hit me the other night, when professor Micah Goodman of Israel was speaking at a private home about his new book, “The Secrets of the ‘Guide to the Perplexed.’ ” Our personalities and characters are guided by our actions, he said, not the other way around. We become our actions.

You, Mr. Soros, have been criticizing Israel for so long that you have become that criticism. Even when you are presented with a glaring example of the value of Israel’s open and civil society, you refuse to give the country its due. You must criticize Israel, you must find a way to blame it, because this is what you do – and this is who you are.

You are like many Israel bashers who call themselves “pro-Israel.” They’re so used to criticizing Israel under the guise of “tough love,” that when they see an opportunity to show a little pride, they, well … they quickly change the subject. “Israel still hasn’t made peace with the Palestinians! Israel must make peace now more than ever!” As if Israel doesn’t crave peace and has never made any offers or sacrifices for peace.

God forbid Israel bashers should ever take a time-out from criticism and say, “Israel must spread its democratic values throughout the Middle East!” But no, that would make Israel look too good, and shift the attention to the 330 million Arabs who are not free, who are not under Israel’s rule, and whose voices have been drowned out for decades by the world’s obsession with blaming Israel for the ills of the Middle East.

Well, thanks to the extraordinary human eruption now happening in the Middle East – an eruption that is about freedom and dignity and not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – it will become harder and harder for people like you to make your “blame Israel first” arguments. I have no doubt, though, that you will keep trying.

So I am challenging you to a live debate: “Israel: Stumbling Block or Shining Light?”

Because I don’t have a private jet, let’s do it in Los Angeles.

David Suissa is the founder of OLAM magazine and a weekly columnist for the Los Angeles Jewish Journal. You can read his daily blog at suissablog.com and e-mail him at dsuissa@olam.org.

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)

Ever since Barack Obama announced his intentions to run for US president, he was seen as a mere effigy of former President Jimmy Carter. Parallels were drawn linking their message, charisma and persona. As Obama undertook change and initiated more programs, thereby expanding government, he looked more like Carter. Even those that were skeptical of the comparison shockingly agreed when it came to the current administration’s foreign policy approach – particularly when it came to Israel. As Obama reinvented himself and shifted positions on his Middle East policy, he largely rid this conception. Yet, as the tension in Egypt rises with the only Arab ally in the Middle East in flames, the Carter image is back to haunt him.

When Barack Obama ran for president, he was criticized by many in both parties as purely naive. His approach was criticized as immature and dangerous. He proposed dialogue with those that supported terror and believed that “As-Salamu Alaykum” will solve our problems amongst the radical Jihadists. As his presidency settled and his honeymoon ended he soon realized that his rhetoric was indeed naiveté. He abandoned the closure of Guantanamo and continued Bush’s war in Afghanistan. But as we see history repeating itself in Egypt with radical extremists taking over a pro-American country, questions linger whether Obama’s naiveté led to this chapter – an episode that will remain as a flaw in US history.

Jimmy Carter initiated a policy to create democracies around the world with a plea for “human rights”. This call led him to call on the Shah to relinquish power of Iran and release Islamic terrorists from prison. Those prisoners led the revolution which eventually turned Iran into a fundamentalist state; one that is anti-democracy and anti-American. This was a direct result of Carter’s indecisiveness and abandonment of the Shah. It was the defining moment for Carter that ended his career and placed his legacy in shambles.

Ronald Regan strongly advocated for democracy around the world. He led the war against communism and pushed for more freedom around the world. It was under his watch that much of Europe turned toward democracy and remained subsequently. However, he took a different and effective approach. He understood that a dictator cannot and should not be replaced with another authoritarian that’s singing the tune of democracy. He pushed for true democracy where freedom would reign and the people would be in charge forever.

George W. Bush also called for democracy in the Middle East and Egypt when he said that they “should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East.” Barack Obama took a direct swipe at Bush at the largely publicized Cairo speech when he said: “I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.” Today many question why Obama didn’t foresee this revolution and whether it would be avoided had he pushed for more democracy in the region.

As chaos brewed in Tunisia and expanded to Egypt, the protestors showed that a totalitarian government cannot exist for too long. As the protestors called for Mubarak’s resignation the Obama administration was wavering. Gibbs declared that it was “not for me or our government to determine” as the uprising escalated. However, behind the scenes Obama pressured Mubarak to resign as it met with the opposition. As the US reexamined its relationship with Muslim Brotherhood, a group that supported Hitler and continues opposing America and Israel, it troubles many that fear for another tyranny state in the Middle East. While many Republicans called for Mubarak’s resignation, they don’t want to replace him with another tyrant simply under the name of democracy. Democracy isn’t the choice to elect another dictator; it’s a recipe for destruction.

A terrorist state in Egypt is troubling. An Islamic government in Egypt immediately threatens Israel and the west. It won’t take them thirty years to become a nuclear power; they will be a major power instantly. Although Mubarak has no immediate future – being that tensions will continue to rise and the violence will escalate leading to the ousting of Mubarak – we must ensure that his successor is a moderate of some sort and one that has our support. This moment is Obama’s Carter moment; Obama will be remembered as the one that held discussions with terrorists and supported their takeover of a pro-American ally.

Dave Hirsch is an orthodox Jewish political analyst and columnist. His opinions were featured in numerous newspapers and publications. He can be reached at davehrsch@gmail.com

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)

[The following Op-Ed was written by Tevi Troy]

As America marks the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth, we will be remembering one of our country’s greatest leaders with speeches, tributes and television specials. Friends of Israel will have a special reason to celebrate: Reagan made the Republican Party into the unambiguously pro-Israel party that it is today.

Indeed, before the Reagan era, the Republican Party had a decidedly mixed record on Israel. In the 1940s and early 1950s, the conservative movement had strong isolationist and even anti-Semitic tendencies. Later, Republican presidents, such as Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon — while by no means isolationists — had complicated relations with the Jewish state. Eisenhower forced Israel to return the Sinai to Egypt after capturing it in 1956. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Nixon wasted precious days before finally re-supplying a tapped out Israel with arms.
Reagan, by contrast, had staunchly pro-Israel views. These were informed by his perception of Israel as an important American ally in the Cold War and his identification with Israel as a vibrant democracy.

“Only by full appreciation of the critical role the State of Israel plays in our strategic calculus can we build the foundation for thwarting Moscow’s designs on territories and resources vital to our security and our national well-being,” Reagan said. As Mitchell Bard, executive director of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, has noted: “Ronald Reagan was the first President to state explicitly that Israel was a strategic asset to the United States.”

But for Reagan, America’s friendship with Israel wasn’t only a matter of strategic calculus. As Reagan said in his 1980 campaign, “Israel represents the one stable democracy sharing values with us in that part of the world…. I think we should make it plain that we are going to keep our commitment to the continued existence of Israel.”

This sort of talk was music to the ears of neoconservatives, many of whom had backed Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election only to grow disillusioned. Reagan gave pro-Israel neoconservatives, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick and Elliott Abrams, prominent roles in his administration. Kirkpatrick, in particular, defended Israel from her perch as American ambassador to the United Nations. The neoconservatives helped give Republican foreign policy a pro-democracy emphasis that it often lacked in the era of Kissingerian realpolitik, permanently altering the way that Republicans related to Israel and its conflicts with its undemocratic neighbors.

Of course, not every action by the Reagan administration was pro-Israel. Reagan supported the sale of AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia over Israel’s objections, and he shortsightedly condemned Israel’s destruction of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility. He also displayed genuine anger with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin over Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. But all of these incidents took place within the context of Reagan taking the U.S.-Israel relationship to a place of genuine friendship.

After some hiccups during the first Bush administration, Republicans have drawn on their Reaganite inheritance and become a reliably pro-Israel party. The post-1994 Republican Congress regularly backed Israel on both substantive and symbolic issues. After 9/11, the Reaganite view that Israel is on the side of democracy in the struggle against the forces of tyranny secured an uncontested place as a central pillar of Republican foreign policy. President George W. Bush was so supportive of Israel that his mother reportedly joked that he was “the first Jewish president.”

A visit to Israel is now a rite of passage for prospective GOP presidential candidates (which is remarkable given that so few Jews vote in the Republican primaries), with Mitt Romney recently undertaking such a pilgrimage. At the grassroots level, according to a Gallup poll last year, 85% of Republicans say they support Israel over the Palestinians, compared to slightly less than half of Democrats — this despite Jewish voters’ longstanding alliance with the Democratic Party.

Some might counter that Republican support for Israel is simply a byproduct of the Evangelical community’s affection for the Jewish state. Others might argue that America’s alliance with Israel was always set in stone. But the strength of the American-Israeli alliance, and in particular the passionate Republican support for this relationship, are in fact more recent achievements. And we have Reagan to thank for them.

Just as Reagan knit together the diverse strands that today make up the Republican Party’s base — social conservatives, national security conservatives, fiscal conservatives and neoconservatives — he also took the passions of these constituencies and wove them into a seamless fabric of support for Israel. As we celebrate this great American’s centennial, those of us who care about Israel owe him our enduring gratitude.

Tevi Troy, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, was a deputy secretary of Health and Human Services and senior White House aide in the George W. Bush Administration.

The above Op-Ed was originally published in the Forward, and submitted to YWN by the author.

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)

[The following Op-Ed was written by David Suissa]

They warned us. The geniuses at Peace Now warned us. The brilliant diplomats warned us. The think tanks warned us. Even the Arab dictators warned us. For decades now, they have been warning us that if you want “peace in the Middle East,” just fix the Palestinian problem. A recent variation on this theme has been: Just get the Jews to stop building apartments in East Jerusalem and Efrat. Yes, if all those Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem would only “freeze” their construction, then, finally, Palestinian leaders might come to the table and peace might break out.

And what would happen if peace would break out between Jews and Palestinians? Would all those furious Arabs now demonstrating on streets across the Middle East feel any better?

What bloody nonsense.

Has there ever been a greater abuse of the English language in international diplomacy than calling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the “Middle East peace process?” As if there were only two countries in the Middle East.

Even if you absolutely believe in the imperative of creating a Palestinian state, you can’t tell me that the single-minded and global obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the expense of the enormous ills in the rest of the Middle East hasn’t been idiotic, if not criminally negligent.

While tens of millions of Arabs have been suffering for decades from brutal oppression, while gays have been tortured and writers jailed and women humiliated and dissidents killed, the world — yes, the world — has obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As if Palestinians — the same coddled victims on whom the world has spent billions and who have rejected one peace offer after another — were the only victims in the Middle East.

As if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has anything to do with the 1,000-year-old bloody conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, or the desire of brutal Arab dictators to stay in power, or the desire of Islamist radicals to bring back the Caliphate, or the economic despair of millions, or simply the absence of free speech or basic human rights throughout the Arab world.

While self-righteous Israel bashers have scrutinized every flaw in Israel’s democracy — some waxing hysterical that the Jewish democratic experiment in the world’s nastiest neighborhood had turned into an embarrassment — they kept their big mouths shut about the oppression of millions of Arabs throughout the Middle East.

They cried foul if Israeli Arabs — who have infinitely more rights and freedoms than any Arabs in the Middle East — had their rights compromised in any way. But if a poet were jailed in Jordan or a gay man were tortured in Egypt or a woman were stoned in Syria, all we heard was screaming silence.

Think of the ridiculous amount of media ink and diplomatic attention that has been poured onto the Israel-Palestinian conflict over the years, while much of the Arab world was suffering and smoldering, and tell me this is not criminal negligence. Do you ever recall seeing a UN resolution or an international conference in support of Middle Eastern Arabs not named Palestinians?

Of course, now that the Arab volcano has finally erupted, all those chronic Israel bashers have suddenly discovered a new cause: Freedom for the poor oppressed Arabs of the Middle East!

Imagine if, instead of putting Israel under their critical and hypocritical microscope, the world’s Israel bashers had taken Israel’s imperfect democratic experiment and said to the Arab world: Why don’t you try to emulate the Jews?

Why don’t you give your people the same freedom of speech and freedom to vote that Israel does? And offer them the economic opportunities they would get in Israel? Why don’t you treat your Jewish and Christian citizens the same way Israel treats its Arab and Christian citizens?

Why don’t you study how Israel has struggled to balance religion with democracy — a very difficult but not insurmountable task?

Why don’t you teach your people that Jews are not the sons of dogs but a noble, ancient people with a 3,000-year connection to the land of Israel?

Yes, imagine if Israel bashers had spent a fraction of their energy fighting the lies of Arab dictators and defending the rights of millions of oppressed Arabs. Imagine if President Obama had taken one percent of the time he has harped on Jewish settlements to defend the democratic rights of Egyptian Arabs — which he is suddenly doing now that the volcano has erupted.

Maybe it’s just easier to beat up on a free and open society like Israel.

Well, now that the cesspool of human oppression in the Arab world has been opened for all to see, how bad is Israel’s democracy looking? Don’t you wish the Arab world had a modicum of Israel’s civil society? Would you still be worrying about “stability in the Middle East?”

You can preach to me all you want about the great Jewish tradition of self-criticism — which I believe in — but right now, when I see poor Arab souls being murdered for the simple act of protesting on the street, I’ve never felt more proud of being a supporter of the Jewish state.

David Suissa is the founder of OLAM magazine and a weekly columnist for the Los Angeles Jewish Journal. You can read his daily blog at suissablog.com and e-mail him at dsuissa@olam.org.

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)

As Attorney General, I uncovered schemes by lenders to exploit students, plots by insurance companies to defraud patients and attempts by Wall Street to deceive homebuyers.  In the past 30 days, as I have prepared the state’s budget, I was shocked to learn that the state’s budget process is a sham that mirrors the deceptive practices I fought to change in the private sector.

The budget process is a metaphor of Albany dysfunction:  special interests dominate the process with little transparency; programs continue with no accountability and the taxpayers get the exorbitant bills.  The greatest challenge – and opportunity – in this year’s difficult budget is to expose this chronic problem and reform it once and for all.  Here’s how it works.
This year it is widely accepted and often reported that the state has a $10 billion “deficit” (I myself have often repeated this number).  What does that mean?  It is the difference between state revenues and the state’s growth in spending in next year’s budget.  The next question is:  who is responsible for setting the growth in the state’s budget?

The answer is shockingly, no one.  It is dictated by hundreds of rates and formulas that are marbleized throughout New York State laws that govern different programs – formulas that have been built into the law over decades, without regard to fiscal realities, performance or accountability.  The formulas operate year after year, generating liabilities that when totaled define the state’s budget growth.

The one thing the rates do well is increase year after year.  These formulas (predominantly in education and Medicaid funding) are often inserted into the law by pressure from well-connected special interests and lobbyists.  When a governor takes office, in many ways the die has already been cast.

Unbelievably, this year these rates and formulas in total call for a 13 percent increase in Medicaid and a 13 percent increase in education funding next year.  A 13 percent increase, in this economic climate, is wholly unrealistic.  Wouldn’t you like your salary or savings account to be based on a formula that gave you a 13 percent increase even though inflation was under 2 percent? The world doesn’t work that way – except in Albany.

Besides dictating numbers, this process frames the dialogue around the budget and biases the political discourse.  First, the rate of increase is rarely discussed.  The 13 percent increase this year is close to a state secret.  I spoke with numerous experienced Albany hands who had no idea the programs increased 13 percent.  In Albany speak, “deficit” means the amount needed to fund the 13 percent increase (as opposed to a normal rate of increase).

For example, if one assumed these programs would increase at the rate of inflation (instead of 13 percent) the 10 billion dollar deficit is really a 1 billion dollar deficit.  A “cut” is then defined as anything less than a 13 percent increase.  By forcing the debate to start with such a large hike—the final budget ends up spending much more than the year before—even after the Governor attempts “cuts.”  For example, what is called a 7 percent cut in spending is actually a 6 percent increase over the prior year.

The expression used to explain this budget process is that the rates are in “permanent law,” and thus, cannot be changed.  “Permanent law” is a term to suggest differentiation from the state’s annual budget bills which are “temporary” as they only exist for one year.  This “permanent law” is really the way the “permanent government” of lobbyists, special interests and political friends manipulates the entire system and misleads the public in the process.

This is the system that has brought New York to the brink, and it is why we are the highest “spending-and-taxing” state in the nation with programs that fail to perform for the people.
This all must end. We need fundamental reform in the budget system that allows us to recalibrate spending this year to a sustainable level and replace “the special interest protection program” of automatic, unrealistic increases.

There is no such thing as “permanent” laws and they must all be reviewed and replaced or modified when necessary.  The state budget should increase based on objective, fair criteria such as the rate of inflation, enrollment, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or personal income growth.  Programs should be reviewed for effectiveness and terminated if they are not working well.  Reimbursement rates should be negotiated to get the best bargain.  Performance should be measured.

Albany must give up its insistence on pleasing the special interests rather than serving the people. This is the real budget battle that I will wage this year. We must balance this year’s budget but we must also reform the process so that the cycle finally stops.  This year’s budget is not merely about the numbers. It’s about our values and our future.

NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo

(YWN Desk – NYC)

US citizens with offshore accounts received yet another reminder this week about the need to become compliant and to consider entering the IRS’ voluntary disclosure program. As YWN reported on Sunday, the former head of Julius Baer’s Cayman Island office provided WikiLeaks with two CDs containing information of more than 2000 individuals who engaged in tax evasion through offshore accounts, including 40 politicians and other “pillars of society.” Julian Assanage, the infamous founder of WikiLeaks, pledged to have the information on those CDs available to the public within two weeks. Any US individual who believes that he or she may be implicated by the content of the CDs should consider coming forward to the IRS immediately.

As I described in a prior YWN article a US citizen who willfully fails to report an offshore bank account (whether the account is held directly or through an entity such as a trust or corporation) may be liable for committing two crimes; filing a false tax return and failing to file a foreign bank account report, or “FBAR.” In addition, crippling civil penalties (as high as over 300% of the account value) may be imposed. A taxpayer with a previously undisclosed foreign bank account may achieve immunity from criminal prosecution and be eligible for reduced penalties by properly entering the IRS voluntary disclosure program.

To be eligible for the voluntary disclosure program, however, the taxpayer must come clean to the IRS before the IRS obtains information about the taxpayer’s foreign account from another source. The IRS will almost certainly take the view that it is deemed to have received the Julius Baer information on the CDs as soon as Mr. Assanage makes such information available to the public.  Thus, with Assanage’s pledge to disclose the information he received to the public within the next two weeks, US taxpayers whose information may be on those CDs have no time to lose; they should attempt to make a voluntary disclosure as soon as possible.

Joe Septimus is a lawyer with Kostelanetz & Fink, LLP, and can be reached at jseptimus@kflaw.com, or (212) 808 8100.

(Joseph Septimus – YWN)

[The following Op-Ed was written by Tevi Troy]

While it is inappropriate to try to blame mainstream political movements for the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, there is at least some suggestion that one decidedly non-mainstream and troubling phenomenon—anti-Semitism—was a factor in the attack on Arizona’s first Jewish congresswoman. The deranged alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was apparently a fan of Mein Kampf and belonged to an anti-Semitic group, which may have helped inspire his deadly rampage. For Jewish officials in public life, the shooting raises the important question of how and whether to acknowledge one’s religion in a world where many people, for a variety of personal and political reasons, want to do Jews harm.

I recently wrote an essay for Mishpacha magazine in which I talked about my own experiences as a Jewish senior official in the Bush Administration. I also discussed the prevalence of Jewish elected officials in the U.S. Congress, including the new House majority leader, Eric Cantor. In response, one reader offered a cautionary letter in which he warned against getting excited over having Jewish officials prominently featured in public life. The correspondent cited the Meshech Chochma, written by Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, Latvia, who wrote in the early 20th century that Jews should be wary of getting too comfortable in a country, lest the native population be reminded of the Jewish people’s otherness and expel them, or worse.

Simcha’s words are even more haunting in light of Jewish history. In his lifetime, Germany, not the United States, was seen as the safest place for Jews to live. Germany was a cultured and advanced society in which Jews had existed, mostly peacefully, for a thousand years. During his lifetime, few would have believed Germany would be the driving force behind an atrocity like the Holocaust. Thus, one cannot blithely dismiss Simcha’s views as the equivalent of the mousy sentiment, “shah shtil fur de goyim”—don’t make a fuss about your Judaism in front of the non-Jewish population.

Even today, in a welcoming nation such as the United States, this fearful attitude often governs Jewish attitudes toward public life and public service. The notion is that latent anti-Semitism is only a surface scratch away and that Jews should keep their heads down and make as little noise as possible so as not to attract negative attention from non-Jewish fellow citizens. This attitude is often seen with respect to embarrassing behavior by Jews—the Bernie Madoff scandal is a prime example of such negative behavior. But the principle goes beyond scandal and applies to any publicly noticeable activity, even positive actions, such as the public service in which Giffords was engaged.

The adherence to a “shah shtil” approach is somewhat understandable not only in the shadow of the Giffords affair but also when one considers the prevalence of anti-Semitism both in the United States and around the world. According to the Anti-Defamation League’s 2009 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, there were “1,211 incidents of vandalism, harassment, and physical assaults against Jewish individuals, property, and community institutions across the U.S.” Outside the United States, the problem is even worse, as similar studies have found more than 1,700 anti-Semitic incidents in 2009 in England and France alone, two countries that publicly condemn anti-Semitism and have large and relatively comfortable Jewish communities. While 2010 figures are not yet available, the ADL’s website details 75 different anti-Semitic incidents in more than two dozen countries around the world in 2010.

Beyond all of these statistics are real stories of people traumatized by direct contact with anti-Semitism. In my own time in public life, I was never directly confronted with anti-Semitism in a physical sense, but I was certainly aware it was out there. When I worked as policy director for Sen. John Ashcroft in the 1990s, the senator’s chief of staff received a letter from an anti-Semitic group questioning my fitness for the job. The reason? I had publicly—and jokingly—hoped that a highly anticipated, high-end kosher restaurant in Washington—long since closed, alas—would be “good enough for the goyim,” that is, of sufficiently high quality that one would not be embarrassed to invite non-Jewish colleagues to eat there as well. The complainant felt that I had used a slur to refer to gentiles, whom he described, somewhat oddly, as my “opponents.” I explained the nonsensical nature of the complaint, and the chief of staff dismissed it, but I didn’t forget the incident.

Later, when I served in the White House, I was what the Jewish journalist Ron Kampeas called “one of the highly identified Jews” in the administration. As such, I was regularly listed on anti-Semitic sites—along with many of my Jewish colleagues—as one of the administration’s Jews, punctuated by questions such as: “Ask yourself: Is their first loyalty to America or Israel?” Later, when nominated as deputy secretary of Health and Human Services, I was the subject of a longer write-up on an anti-Semitic site, which breathlessly reported that my last name Troy had been shortened from “Troyansky.”

In recounting these experiences, I do not intend to portray myself as a victim of anti-Semitism. To the contrary. I believe that it is a credit to the United States that I saw so little evidence of anti-Semitism that only aggressive Googling would uncover it. I also recognize that the White House bubble provides some lever of protection for senior officials—not only is the whole campus closely guarded, but direct phone numbers were unpublished, and discerning the email addresses of White House staffers is not intuitive. At the same time, I was also aware that anti-Semitic ugliness was a reality.

It is this reality that gives Jewish officials cause to be concerned and thoughtful about their public profiles, whether in the United States or elsewhere in the world. Yet while Jews should remain cognizant of the dangers of anti-Semitism, the proper response to the Giffords incident should not be a turn inward. In contrast, it is only by resolving to become active citizens and compassionate neighbors that we can identify and confront what is hateful before it gains political force.

Rather than being discouraged by the tragedy, aspiring Jewish officials should be encouraged by the embrace of Giffords as a national hero. They should also recognize that Jews serving in public life may disturb some, but that their service presents opportunities to show devotion to this country, which is a powerful tool against anti-Semitism. In addition, having more Jews in public life gives Jews a platform for fulfilling their historic role of a “light unto the nations.” The best way to fight against the darkness of all forms of bigotry is with the light of Judaism’s key message, as distilled by the great Rabbi Hillel when asked to summarize the whole Torah while standing on one leg: “What is hateful to you, do not do unto others.”

Giffords was willing to take the risk of serving in Congress while living quite publicly as a Jew. Today all Americans, Jew and non-Jew alike, are united in praying for her full and speedy recovery. But the attack on her reminds us that those willing to take a public stand against bigotry are heroes who deserve the accolades and admiration of our citizens. At a time such as this, Giffords’ example shows the Jewish people that we must eschew the “shah shtil” principle of cowering in the background. We cannot afford to be silent in the face of anti-Semitism or any other ideology of hate.

Tevi Troy, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, was a deputy secretary of Health and Human Services and senior White House aide in the George W. Bush Administration.

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)

[Op-Ed By Yossi Gestetner]

Before it was even clear if Democrat Congressperson Gabrielle Giffords survived the shooting, members of the media and press were already pointing to Palin and to Anti-Obamacare rhetoric that caused the shooting.

Let us put aside the fact that Giffords was only one of nineteen Dems to vote last week against Pelosi being Speaker, in addition to Giffords owning a gun and asking Obama to send troops to the border. Instead, let us – like “professional” media people ate doing – play politics when the blood is still being collected from the scene, and ask the following:

· When debating with Liberals as to why we don’t focus on the most likely suspects of international terrorists, such as radical, young, male Muslims, the Left points to the Oklahoma bombing of 1995 as “proof” that Whites also commit terror acts, and as such everyone needs to be treated as equal suspects. Indeed, Saturday’s story plays into this theme. But it begs the question: If three mass terror acts by Whites in a spam of fifteen years (including the 1999 Columbine massacre) is enough to keep Whites as ongoing suspects at airports, etc, how many more terror acts and plots would it take for Radical Muslims to commit before they are treated as potential threats, and perhaps 9-1 threats versus Whites?

· After Arizona passed its tough Immigration Laws, rioting and vandalism broke out, including the smearing of swastikas on Arizona’s Capital. The smearing “was sparked by the newly signed anti-illegal-immigration law,” reported a news site. The questions is: When are the actions of politicians – such as being tough on illegal immigration – at fault for “sparking” violence, and when are opponents of a law – say opponents of Obamacare, a law supported by Giffords – at fault for violence?

· Similarly, members of the Left, after 9/11, instead of blaming radicals for the acts, were asking “why do they hate us?,” as if it is America who needs to correct its ways not to be hated. Will Democrats – in the wake of the shooting – ask “why do they (some in the American population) hate us?” or will Palin, Limbaugh, opponents of Obamacare, supports of the Arizona Immigration law, continued to be faulted for the shooting? If it will be the latter, when will the Left stop blaming the USA for the 9/11 and other attacks, and instead blame those who drive others to commit the acts and/or blame those who actually to it?

In closing: as of this point, I don’t think that the Saturday shooting was driven by a sane, young person who opposed from the Right the Congressperson’s political acts. However, the above questions are asked only in the context as how the Left is spinning the story as of now.

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

Contact the author, yossi@yossigestetner.com

Last week, the nearly 200,000 people I represent were left stranded by their Mayor – a Mayor I have supported for years. In fact, his no non-sense approach to government is what I have always sought to emulate. Yet, the man who convinced me that I needed his leadership for a third term, failed me. Because of his failure, millions have suffered. Politicians, pundits and everyday people are already pointing fingers, blaming Commissioners and Deputies across the Administration. I, however, place the blame squarely where it belongs: on the mayor who is always in charge.

When the City Council holds its oversight hearings on January 10th, my goal will be to examine where there were failures, whether they were avoidable and how to prevent this type of catastrophic breakdown in emergency response in the future. My colleagues and I will, undoubtedly, make countless recommendations to the Mayor. However, if history is any guide, he will ignore them. This is a man who shuns criticism and vests his commissioners with a degree of trust and autonomy unseen by any other Mayor in our history. While I appreciate the benefits that come with knowing you have the support and protection of your boss, I believe that his persistent defense of seemingly indefensible acts is inexcusable and directly led to the events of last week. In essence, the Mayor sends a message to all of his staff: it is okay to screw up, because I will never fire you.

In 2006, Nixmary Brown’s death shocked and outraged the city, and there were fervent calls for Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) Commissioner John Mattingly to resign following a breakdown within his agency that was appalling. The Mayor stood behind Mattingly and both made promises to reform an obviously broken system. In 2009, three years later, the City Council held hearings that showed the deficiencies at ACS persisted and, in 2010, history repeated itself when 4-year-old Marchella Pierce, who was under ACS-supervision, was found beaten and starving to death in her home.  Mattingly remains at the helm of ACS because even having children die on your watch is not enough to get Mayor Mike to fire you.

In a December 2009 City Council hearing, my colleagues highlighted spiraling costs and irregularities with a program called CityTime. Despite mounting evidence that corruption was afoot, the administration did not pursue the Council’s claims that the program was in trouble. A year later, the CityTime scandal erupted, nearly $80 million in fraud was uncovered and federal prosecutors arrested city subcontractors. It seemed like a no-brainer that Joel Bondy, the head of the payroll-administration office responsible for overseeing the project, would be fired immediately. Not so, in the Bloomberg administration. Bondy was only suspended and, just days later, resigned on his own terms. Apparently, having the greatest modern fraud perpetrated under your watch is also not enough to get Mayor Mike to fire you.

When I announced my City Council run one year ago, I was delighted at the time to have the Mayor’s support. I believed then, that the Mayor has a unique ability to run government efficiently. However, his unwillingness to hold his staff accountable has become the fatal flaw of his administration. Mr. Mayor, it is not too late to rectify the mistakes that you made. But, it will require you to hold individuals at the highest levels of your administration accountable for their mistakes, as well. Accountability only means one thing: every single person responsible for the snow failure must lose their job. Until every single person who failed this city is fired, you will not regain my confidence or the confidence of millions of other New Yorkers.

David Greenfield is an attorney and Democratic New York City Councilman from Brooklyn.