Update from the
Heartland
No.785
26.12.16 – 1.1.17
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Happy New Year
to all my peeps.
to all my peeps.
The follow-up news items:
-- Apparently, my support for the Obama administration’s
action on United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016) and my
criticism of the Israeli administration’s continuing overt support for West
Bank settlement expansions [784] were
not well received or tolerable. It
is quite unfortunate that we cannot have a public debate about such important
topics. We all make our choices in
life, so it is with nations as well.
Freedom depends upon active public debate. Israel has every right, as a sovereign nation, to do what it
believes is necessary for its national security and safety of its
citizens. However, Israel does NOT
have the right to take advantage of U.S. support.
For
the record, my opinion was focused entirely on that one brick in a rather large
wall. Peace between Israel and
Palestine is far more complex than one brick. I reject any suggestion that I even remotely imply the
settlement issue is the keystone of Middle East peace – it is NOT! I see the settlement issue very much in
the vein of the schoolyard bully . . . why do they do it . . . because they can
. . . and there is no one to stop them.
Commandeering land by de facto
squatting construction of settlements is not how we make progress in solving
the seemingly intractable problem of peace between Israel and Palestine.
We
cannot continue to punish an entire population for the hideous and
indiscriminate violence of a few in their midst. This is not significantly different from banning all Muslims
from immigration because we seek to keep the radical Islamo-fascist jihadis out
of our country.
I
have been and remain a staunch supporter of a safe, peaceful, secure and
resilient State of Israel.
Concomitantly, I support guarantees of Israeli security by the United
States of America and the international community. However, my (our) support is not carte blanche for
Israel to do whatever the hell it wants in the region. Palestine is entitled to its
sovereignty as well. The conflict
is not just about Israel’s right to exist; it is also about Palestine’s right
to exist.
Given
President-elect Trump’s publicly espoused disdain for Muslims, the prospect for
a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is now farther away. These are the swings of politics and
international relations.
In the better late than never category, Congress passed and
the President signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
[PL
114-xxx; S.2943; Senate:
92-7-0-1(0); House: 375-34-0-25(1); 130 Stat. xxxx], which funds the Department of Defense
and other national security endeavors.
Three months late, but hey, who is counting? The overwhelming bi-partisan support for the bill should not
be overlooked.
Several
sources pointed at some perceived ominous provision buried deep in the new law
– Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act. I was bothered by the claims the noted act was a quiet,
un-illuminated, federal intrusion upon our First Amendment rights. I searched the publicly accessible federal government
sources and could find no reference to such an act in the approved new
law. The closest I could get was: Title
XII – Matters Relating to Foreign Nations; Subtitle E – Other Matters; §1287 –
Global Engagement Center {also referred to as §1259C in earlier versions}. Having read through the text of the §1287
provisions, I cannot see anything sinister, or even remotely concerning. In fact, quite the contrary, given the
recent events, the §1287 provisions are logical, appropriate, and frankly long
overdue. I can only conclude that
those who sought to stir up anti-federal sentiments used the same
disinformation techniques that would be the focus of the new Global Engagement
Center.
Comments and contributions from Update no.784:
Comment to the Blog:
“Your reporting on the Electoral College is accurate, but I
disagree that Trump has a ‘mandate’ in the sense he uses it. Merriam-Webster
defines mandate first [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mandate] as
‘an authoritative command.’ Trump
has no such thing from We the People. He has been selected by the Electoral College, but that is
far from an ‘authoritative command’ to follow his personal course. As you yourself pointed out, he lost the
popular vote. Trump has provided our only true test of Hamilton’s stated
purpose of the Electoral College. It failed.
“I have no affection for Israel and I cannot understand why the U.S.
government has seen fit to support them in the blind way it has. That UN abstention may be Obama's most
positive foreign policy action. Israel
has always been brash, much like a little kid who counts on a big, tough friend
to get away with bullying. The
big, tough kid is officially standing back right now, so we shall see the
results of Israel's current bravado. I await Trump's whims, noting that events sometimes move very
quickly in that part of the world and his options may be different.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
“mandate.” I do believe, if you re-read my words,
we are in complete agreement. He
has no mandate . . . despite what he thinks.
Re:
“Electoral
College.” I certainly
understand why you would say it has failed. We shall respectfully disagree. We get what we deserve. It will soon be time to suffer the consequences of this
election.
Re:
“Israel.” The genesis of U.S. support for Israel
goes back many decades . . . nearly a century by my reckoning. There is no simple answer. Trump’s espoused position is far to the
right of my position. We can only
hope, if he ever does study up on the history, he will find a more reasonable
and informed position, rather than the emotional one he currently
maintains. I agree. We shall see.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Perhaps we did get ‘what we deserve,’ as adults, but my
grandchildren had no say in this election. Perhaps you underestimate the effect of Trump's combination
if ignorance and insanity on the rest of the world. China, Germany, Japan, and many others are not unwise enough
to wait for the Donald to go nuclear.”
. . . my follow-up response:
I
take your point. Our grandchildren
do not vote, yet.
Re:
“underestimate
. . . Trump.” Oh, I don’t
think so. I think I have a fairly
sober view of the potential damage Trump can do, and I also hold a rather
pessimistic view of how likely he is to do so.
Another contribution:
“A comment on the majority vote for HC. If I remember correctly,
if the Democratic vote in California is removed, Donald wins the national
overall vote by over a million votes. Another plus I believe for the EC.”
My reply:
Ah,
yes, alternate history is a double-edged sword. If only several hundred thousand votes had been different in
three particular states, Hillary would have won both the popular vote and the
Electoral College vote, and would be president-elect today.
Yes,
I agree; I do believe the Electoral College functioned as the Founders /
Framers intended. Time shall tell
the tale whether the Electoral College performed their ultimate duty of
preventing a scoundrel from being the chief executive of this Grand Republic –
and that cuts both ways, I’m afraid.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
Concerning the response to you discussion on the Israeli settlements: (a) I found your position pretty moderate, and (b) in all the time I have followed this blog, you never found it necessary to mention people's responses except to reply to them. Some of the responses you published have been extreme or incoherent. Whatever that response was, it must have been pretty outrageous.
I see the keystone issue in the entire Eastern Mediterranean as thousands of years of hatred. If the Romans couldn't resolve that, nobody can. (The British tried, the Allies made an attempt, and the UN continues its efforts.) We need to withdraw from trying to force peace on the many factions who only seek violence and take a position only in true self defense. Limited humanitarian aid is appropriate if we can do it safely, but would probably result in the deaths of some of those trying to help.
I see the "Global Engagement Center" as a continuation of programs that have existed in reference to the rest of the world since at least World War II. These are not transparent in the least, and I have no idea why this was openly included in that bill. While I do not approve of such things, activists of all stripes have bigger fish to fry than what is stated in the language of the bill. My real concern is that the regulation of speech and the lying will extend to US citizens and our organizations. Opposition to any given Administration and revelations about corruption and brutality are not wrong and are protected by the Constitution. The beginning of the Trump Administration is the absolute worst time in US history to prevent resistance.
Calvin,
Happy New Year to you, my friend.
It was not outrageous, just very personal . . . a long time friend, or at least I thought he was a friend. He was intolerant of any criticism of Israel; thus, my follow-up opinion last week [785]. C’est la vie!
Re: “Eastern Mediterranean.” Interesting observations. There certainly needs to a better, more stable and productive, balance point . . . somewhere.
Re: “Global Engagement Center.” As I read the text of the new law, I do not feel the same way. Then again, we do not agree on the transparency matter with respect to intelligence. When you expose means & methods, and sometimes even the raw intelligence, you inherently enable an enemy (or those meaning us harm) to defeat those measures, thus increasing the risks to the very people the intelligence is suppose help protect. The law is explicitly focused on foreign propaganda, not internal dissent. Like all laws, there is always the potential for abuse. We must remain vigilant.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment