US Politics: "Emergency Committee for Israel" is Launched

The birth of The Emergency Committee for Israel has been announced by a combination of Republican Party activists and Evangelical Christians. Its board includes Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer, and conservative writer and activist Rachel Abrams.

Kristol said, "We’re the pro-Israel wing of the pro-Israel community", while Bauer described the Obama presidency as “the most anti-Israel administration in the history of the United States".

Kristol explained why there was a need for a new pro-Israeli group:

There are some who say they’re pro-Israel but aren’t really [a reference to another activist group, Street]. Then there’s AIPAC [America Israel Public Affairs Committee], which is a wonderful organization, but one that’s very committed to working with the administration, so they pull some punches publicly.

While the question is debated of how many advocacy groups are needed to support Israel in the US, Haaretz's Akiva Eldar points out an important detail ignored during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's meetings with American Jews last week. Eldar writes:

"Everybody knows that there are Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem that, under any peace plan, will remain where they are," Netanyahu said in response to the question from Malcolm Honlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, on the fate of the eternal capital. Netanyahu did not say: "Israel's united capital forever and ever."

Is The Emergency Committee for Israel even more "committed" than Netanyahu, who is hinting a possible shift in Israeli state policy over the status of Jerusalem? Are they putting gentle pressure on him as well as sending a firmer message to US politicians?

US Politics: The Federal Government v. Arizona on Immigration (Haddigan)

Lee Haddigan writes for EA:

Last Tuesday, the US Department of Justice announced the much-anticipated challenge by the Federal Government challenge to Arizona’s new immigration law. In a brief filed in the Federal Court of the District of Arizona, the Department asked for a temporary enjoinment (to precede a permanent one) against S.B. 1070, due to become law on 29 July on the grounds that the legislation is unconstitutional.

US Politics: The Arizona Immigration Law (Haddigan)

If the decision to fight S.B. 1070 was expected, the grounds for the Federal Government’s case were less so: instead of opposing Arizona’s new law as an interference with the 4th Amendment to the Constiution, they decided to use the Supremacy Clause as the basis for defeating the controversial legislation. Attorney General Eric Holder said the Federal Government have not ruled out fighting S.B. 1070 over the issue of racial profiling but will wait to see how the law is implemented before a commitment to take Arizona to court over civil rights violations.

One reason for the government’s position is that the American Civil Liberties Union and other organisations, aided by a "friend of the court" brief from the Mexican Government, have already challenged the law on civil rights grounds. The federal submission has remarkably little to say on civil rights consequences --- for instance, it does not question the provision of what "reasonable suspicion" means when an officer asks to see papers showing a suspect’s immigration status --- other than to question a law that calls for the incarceration of legal citizens who may not have their residency qualifications on their person.

The brief also mentions that some illegal aliens are resident in the United States with the express approval of the federal authorities but are waiting on the necessary papers to prove that to an arresting officer. This latter point, however, is developed to add weight to the claim that the Arizona state law interferes with the aims of federal immigration legislation, a conflict of interest that is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.

By invoking the doctrine that federal law pre-empts (has "supremacy" over) state law in matters concerning immigration the Obama administration has set the stage for a long drawn-out battle, with a probable final recourse to the Supreme Court. It is a conflict that will arouse passions on both sides of the debate because it deals with an issue that has stimulated political debate in the United States ever since the Constitution was ratified.

The argument revolves around how the document is to be interpreted. One side --- the originalist or strict constructionalist --- regards the words of the Founding Fathers, expressly stated, as the only basis for deciding whether or not a law is constitutional. The other --- the loose interpretation or living document side --- contends that the Constitution is only a framework that over time and changing circumstances provides a guide to making laws in modern times.

Herein lays the political importance of this particular instance of the Federal Government using the Supremacy Clause. For S.B. 1070 is constitutional, or unconstitutional, depending on which side (for originalis,t read conservative; for liberal, read living document) interprets the new law.

The conservative opponents of the recent actions of the Department of Justice will point out that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to legislate exclusively on immigration measures. The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

For the originalist, since the Constitution does not delegate to the Federal Government the power to determine how immigration is to be handled, then the states have the power reserved to themselves.

Liberals contend, however, that while the Federal Government’s exclusive right to deal with immigration is not stated in the Constitution, it is implied by the Government’s right to determine the naturalization process for foreign-born citizens. Over time, the duty to ascertain how naturalization is to be awarded evolved into --- as shown by the federal laws dealing with immigration --- control over the means of deciding who can and cannot enter the United States legally.

The Supremacy Clause states that:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The relevant part of this clause is the stipulation that "the supreme Law of the Land" shall be that "made in Pursuance" of the Constitution. Under the "loose interpretation" reasoning, the issue of immigration may not be mentioned in the Constitution, but it has become a power of the federal government through legislation on naturalization concerns as and when they arose. The brief argues that the “Constitution affords the federal government the power to “establish an
uniform Rule of Naturalization”, and as Congress has passed immigration laws dealing with the "rules of Naturalization’"those powers are now enshrined in federal law –-- the "supreme Law of the Land".

The conflict between federal v. states rights over immigration is a technical debate that will see, unless the law is invalidated on undeniable civil rights arguments, the matter go all the way to the Supreme Court. Supporters of S.B 1070 have called the federal action "baseless", with Governor Brewer of Arizona even labeling it "outrageous".  But conservative commentators have yet to concentrate their attention on two arguments in the brief that will provoke a sense of moral outrage among supporters of S.B. 1070.

The first concerns the matter of national security. The federal government is arguing that the Department of Homeland Security was established, in part, to deal with the threat immigration posed to public safety. The brief maintains that it is a federal "priority", through its “significant enforcement discretion”, to “principally target aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism … aliens convicted of crimes, with a particular emphasis on violent criminals”.  The government’s position continues that Arizona’s law interferes with the federal "supremacy" in investigating and prosecuting the above "violent criminals" and "terrorists".

This reminds the more sedentary reader of arguments used by the FBI to take over cases from local "hick" police departments in numerous television shows and films; the local force is not capable of investigating serious crimes, and actually only makes things worse, so the federal agency (the clever guys in Washington) must intervene to save the day.  The claim of the Obama administration that Arizona cannot legislate its own state laws and use its"‘police powers" to protect its citizens from violent criminals, because it preempts the priorities of the DHS and other federal agencies, is certain to provoke indignation.

The brief continues that S.B. 1070 “will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries”.No-one doubts that the president retains all authority to deal with America’s foreign relations with other sovereign nations, but this apparent pandering to the complaints of the Mexican government, (especially in light of the country’s own alleged harsh immigration law, will not endear the administration to conservatives. With the "friend of the court" brief submitted by Mexico submitted in the ACLU challenge and President Calderon’s criticism of the law at the White House, President Obama has opened the doors for conservatives to speculate on his commitment to prioritizing the defense of American interests, a potentially damaging charge.

On the day the federal brief was filed,20  Arizona lawmakers sent a letter to the US Attorney General explaining how their bill did not violate civil rights laws, but the Supremacy Clause argument seemed to take them somewhat by surprise.

Yet that manoeuvre may backfire on the administration politicall. Even the most die-hard supporter of S.B. 1070 would admit there are concerns that the "reasonable suspicion" for asking for proof of legal residence could lead to charges of racial profiling. But, with the claim that the federal government has priority in dealing with illegal violent criminals within the borders of Arizona, the Obama administration has ensured the struggle over this new law will stir more emotional posturing.

Pakistan: Connections from Democracy to Civil War (and How to Change Them)

EA correspondent Josh Mull is the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. He also writes for Rethink Afghanistan:

Earlier this week, I wrote about an impending civil war in Pakistan, projecting a possible "complete collapse of Pakistan as a recognizable entity", not because of its geography --- it has survived breakaway provinces before, with national identities still intact --- but because of its structure as a modern, democratic society.  Some readers were understandably skeptical.

Afghanistan Projection: Pakistan’s “Strategic Depth” & Endless War (Mull)

Beyond the violence and anti-Americanism we see in the Western press, Pakistan offers much that we foreigners can recognise. It has a powerful military and institutions of civil society much like the West, but it also has fervent patriotic pride, struggles with women's and minority rights, and a constant battle between secular progressives and conservative fundamentalists that will be instantly familiar to any American. Far from the alien, failed state portrayed on television, Pakistan is a vibrant, cosmopolitan society dealing with the same grand cultural questions as those in many other countries.

So how do you get from this to complete collapse? How could a painstakingly constructed democracy disintegrate, and how could a powerful, western-backed military fail so miserably to protect the nation in the face of what seems only to be illiterate, fascist hill people and their sickeningly backward superstitions?

The problem is not only one of perception, that we take both the Pakistan we love (liberal, educated patriots) and the Pakistan we hate (wicked, violent Taliban) for granted --- always there, never changing. More than that, Pakistan's uncertain future is the direct result of deliberate policy choices by the US, Pakistan, and many others. The collapse will not be sudden and spectacular; it will be the slow culmination of years, decades, of decisions and actions, both large and small, from the enormously important to the pathetically insignificant.

Every ISAF soldier, every night raid, every civilian casualty, every fresh Taliban recruit, every drone strike, every Blackwater mercenary, every stolen election we overlook, every elected representative we sideline and marginalize, every "strategic summit" with General Kiyani and General Musharraf before him, every unaccountable dollar we funnel to the corrupt in Kabul, Islamabad, and Rawalpindi, every single, tiny action is a pinprick to the stability of the region, an almost unnoticeable chipping away at the integrity of Pakistan, as well as its neighbor Afghanistan.

Pakistan is equally liable, with its long history of supporting terrorists and militants, its capitulation to the worst extremist and de-stabilizing elements in society, its willingness to betray democracy in favor of dictatorship, its negation of long-term national goals for short-term gains from unhelpful foreign alliances, its victimization of its own citizens (first in East Pakistan, now in Balochistan), and of course the inexplicably obsessive appetite for, the fetish of Pakistan's elite for war with India.

These individual policies in turn feed our mistaken perceptions. We see them as isolated, not in their complete context. Sure the civilian casualties recruit militants, we say, but we're fighting a war. Sure the war in Afghanistan is bad, but we're pushing the extremists across the border. Sure the extremists in Pakistan are bad, but we support the western-educated Army. Sure the Army is unelected, but the civilian government is corrupt. And on and on it goes until there's simply nothing left. Afghanistan destroyed, Pakistan inflamed, and our own country politically and economically ripping apart at the seams. It all adds up, whether we're awake to it or not.

None of this is new information, mind you. These are well-documented facts that have been discussed at length in this space. But how is it that the democracy in Pakistan, the liberal, educated modern society so similar to that of the US, can break down? What does an American soldier in Kandahar, Afghanistan have to do with the democratic government in Islamabad, Pakistan, or any of these seemingly disparate and disconnected issues?

We can see that connection on the Internet. First, a report in the Christian Science Monitor [emphasis mine]:

“its now time to implenet islam [sic] and hang black water, rehamn malik and zardari till death,” posts one user, referring to the private American security firm, Pakistan’s interior minister, and Pakistan's president.

That [Facebook Wall Post] appeared on the page of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a global Islamist party that denounces democracy and campaigns for the establishment of a global caliphate (akin to an empire) based on Islamic Law. The user goes by “Commander Khattab,” the name of deceased Chechen guerrilla leader.[...]

[Hizb-ut-Tahrir spokesman Naveed Butt] claims that the SMS blasts are beginning to influence its target audience of “influential people” such as parliamentarians, lawyers, students, and journalists. “We’re steadily growing in number, as educated people realize democracy will never deliver. Practically they are seeing there is no way out for Pakistan. Secularism will never work. People are committing suicide, people are dying.”...

Khutum-e-Naboohat faces no such difficulties in keeping its operations running. According to Mr. Rashid, wealthy donors help pay the bills while the tech-savvy youngsters among its ranks maintain their website.

“We either work from home or from the computers here in the mosque,” says Umar Shah, a web designer. “It’s important to spare time for this mission because it’s a matter of our faith.”...

“The government has never tried to stop it,” [Saleem-ul-Haque Khan] says.

The government hasn't done anything to stop the extremists plotting its destruction, but it has taken other actions. From Reporters Without Borders [emphasis mine]:

“The situation of online free expression is deteriorating in Pakistan,” the press freedom organisation said. “The vice has been tightening since access to Facebook was blocked in mid-May. The country seems to want massive Internet surveillance and is moving towards a targeted filtering system that is neither transparent nor respectful of rights and freedoms.”

Among the sites to be kept under watch are Yahoo!, MSN, Hotmail, YouTube, Google, Islam Exposed, In the Name of Allah, Amazon and Bing. Thirteen sites have already been blocked including www.skepticsannotatedbible.com, www.middle-east-info.org, www.faithfreedom.org, www.thereligionofpeace.com, www.abrahamic-faith.com, www.muhammadlied.com, www.prophetofdoom.net, www.worldthreats.com,www.voiceofbelievers.com and www.walidshoebat.com.

The government can monitor and block access to sites like YouTube and Google, sites which allow the free flow of information not only for blasphemy but also for dissent, accountability, and all manner of democratic movements. Meanwhile the extremist, anti-government forces are allowed to flourish without fear. Right there is everything you need to know to see the grand connection.

Why is the government blocking access to dissent? Because the extremists call it blasphemous. Why must the government give in to this? Because it is weakened from both the American marginalization of democracy and the foreign backing of extremists, allowing the Taliban to "punch above its weight" and forcing the government to punch far below its. Where is the real power in Pakistan? With the Army and intelligence services, supported by the US, who then in turn support the extremists and militants. What allows those extremists to advance into Pakistani society? They blur the issues of the US war in Afghanistan and our policies in Pakistan ("black water") into domestic politics ("hang...zardari").

The liberal, educated Pakistani democrat has an ally in the extremist who wants to fight the US puppet government, who in turn has an ally in the Taliban fighting the Americans, who in turn has an ally in Afghanistan whose family was killed by NATO bombs, who in turn has an ally in the Pakistani intelligence services, them an ally in the Army, and those in the Army undermine the government which, of course, then sets off the liberal, educated Pakistani democrat.

Get the picture? This is where it all crashes together, the crossroads of the war in Afghanistan, "Strategic Depth", undermining democracy in Pakistan - everything. This is how it works out, how we'll see the "complete collapse of Pakistan as a recognizable entity." There is no awesome explosion, no moment of shattering, no one culprit on which to pin all the blame.

This is what the complete collapse will look like. No one left we can recognise as an ally, only violent resistance, war, and destruction. No more vibrant, democratic society, no more progressive struggles, no more women's, minority, or even human rights. Only war remains, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and likely spreading out into India and across the entire sub-continent.

However, just because these problems are so enormous does not mean that they cannot be solved. In fact, the exact same principles that went into creating these problems --- the disconnections of individual actions --- are precisely what will work for us.

Pakistani citizens are standing up, rejecting the extremists' calls for violence, fighting the corruption of their elected officials, and working in all branches of the government to reform their fragile system. Each individual adds up into a movement, and that movement adds up to stifling their country's descent into civil war.

But we as Americans also have a responsibility to act individually. Every time you call congress (dial (202) 224-3121 and ask for your representative), every meeting you attend, every bit of pressure on your government --- it all adds up. A few concerned filmmakers and journalists becomes Rethink Afghanistan. A couple of dedicated bloggers becomes Firedoglake. A handful of progressive activists becomes ActBlue. Small, disconnected acts turn into a huge movement. Your short meeting at your congressman's office turns into their vote for reforming our policies toward the region, into ending the war in Afghanistan, peace in Pakistan, and free and stable governments for both Pakistanis and Afghans.

No one action created the horrendous instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and no one person, not even President Obama, can end the war and solve these problems by themselves. The problems will be solved the same way they were created, through concerned, individual citizens taking action for themselves.

US Special: The Anti-Capitalist Evil of Kids Giving Away Lemonade

UPDATE 2015 GMT: Oh, my sweet Lord, it's not a satire. The aptly-named Terry Savage is very, very serious:



In the category of We Really Hope This Column is Just a Fantastic Satire, an offering from the aptly-named Terry Savage of the Chicago Sun-Times:



This column is a true story -- every word of it. And I think it very appropriate to consider around the Fourth of July, Independence Day spirit.

Last week, I was in a car with my brother and his fiancee, driving through their upscale neighborhood on a hot summer day. At the corner, we all noticed three little girls sitting at a homemade lemonade stand.

We follow the same rules in our family, and one of them is: Always stop to buy lemonade from kids who are entrepreneurial enough to open up a little business.

My brother immediately pulled over to the side of the road and asked about the choices.

The three young girls -- under the watchful eye of a nanny, sitting on the grass with them -- explained that they had regular lemonade, raspberry lemonade, and small chocolate candy bars.

Then my brother asked how much each item cost.

"Oh, no," they replied in unison, "they're all free!"

I sat in the back seat in shock. Free? My brother questioned them again: "But you have to charge something? What should I pay for a lemonade? I'm really thirsty!"

His fiancee smiled and commented, "Isn't that cute. They have the spirit of giving."

That really set me off, as my regular readers can imagine.

"No!" I exclaimed from the back seat. "That's not the spirit of giving. You can only really give when you give something you own. They're giving away their parents' things -- the lemonade, cups, candy. It's not theirs to give."

I pushed the button to roll down the window and stuck my head out to set them straight.

"You must charge something for the lemonade," I explained. "That's the whole point of a lemonade stand. You figure out your costs -- how much the lemonade costs, and the cups -- and then you charge a little more than what it costs you, so you can make money. Then you can buy more stuff, and make more lemonade, and sell it and make more money."

I was confident I had explained it clearly. Until my brother, breaking the tension, ordered a raspberry lemonade. As they handed it to him, he again asked: "So how much is it?"

And the girls once again replied: "It's free!" And the nanny looked on contentedly.

No wonder America is getting it all wrong when it comes to government, and taxes, and policy. We all act as if the "lemonade" or benefits we're "giving away" is free.

And so the voters demand more -- more subsidies for mortgages, more bailouts, more loan modification and longer periods of unemployment benefits.

They're all very nice. But these things aren't free.

The government only gets the money to pay these benefits by raising taxes, meaning taxpayers pay for the "free lemonade." Or by printing money -- which is essentially a tax on savings, since printing more money devalues the wealth we hold in dollars.

If we can't teach our kids the basics of running a lemonade stand, how can we ever teach Congress the basics of economics?

Or maybe it's the other way around: The kids are learning from the society around them. No one has ever taught them there's no free lunch -- and all they see is "free," not the result of hard work, and saving, and scrimping.

If that's what America's children think -- that there's a free lunch waiting -- then our country has larger problems ahead. The Declaration of Independence promised "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It didn't promise anything free. Something to think about this July 4th holiday weekend.

And that's the Savage Truth!

Petraeus Plays Politics: The General's E-Mail Scheming on Israel (Mondoweiss)

Sunday's media headlines are dominated by the soundbite of General David Petraeus, the new US commander in Afghanistan, on the conflict --- "We in it to win it" --- backed up by glowing references for his record, notably the supposed success of the "surge" under his supervision in Iraq in 2007/8.

Regular readers will know that I am a sceptic of Petraeus' well-crafted military reputation but am a great admirer of his political skills. So, amidst the weekend's cheerleading, I have noted an illuminating story from Mondoweiss.

In March EA noted an apparently dramatic stance by Petraeus warning that the US had to confront the Israel-Palestine issue, if necessary talking tough to West Jerusalem, if its broader policy from the Middle East to Central Asia was to be successful. Little did we know that, behind the scenes, Petraeus was putting out the message that he did not hold the views --- including the need for pressure on Israel --- set out in his written testimony to Congress:

Israel & the US: Who is Offering Concessions at Home and Abroad? (Yenidunya)
Israel-Turkey Analysis: Netanyahu Saves Face with Foreign Minister by Snubbing Ankara and Washington (Yenidunya)

Last March General David Petraeus, then head of Central Command, sought to undercut his own testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that was critical of Israel by intriguing with a right-wing writer to put out a different story, in emails obtained by Mondoweiss.

The emails show Petraeus encouraging Max Boot of Commentary to write a story-- and offering the neoconservative writer choice details about his views on the Holocaust:

Does it help if folks know that I hosted Elie Wiesel and his wife at our quarters last Sun night?! And that I will be the speaker at the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the concentration camps in mid-Apr at the Capitol Dome...

Petraeus passed the emails along himself through carelessness last March. He pasted a Boot column from Commentary's blog into in an "FYI" email he sent to an activist who is highly critical of the U.S.'s special relationship with Israel. Some of the general's emails to Boot were attached to the bottom of the story. The activist, James Morris, shared the emails with me.

The tale:

Back on March 13, Mark Perry broke the explosive story that Gen. David Petraeus was echoing Joe Biden's view that the special relationship with Israel is endangering Americans. Perry said that Petraeus had sent aides to the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the White House to tell him that the U.S.'s inability to stand up to Israel was hurting Americans across the Middle East. Perry reported that Petraeus was asking that Israel and Palestine be included under his Central Command (rather than under Europe, as they are now).

On March 16, neocon Max Boot, who is on the Council of Foreign Relations and holds militarist pro-Israel views (he's an American Jew born in Russia), sought to refute Perry's post at the Commentary blog:

I asked a military officer who is familiar with the briefing in question and with Petraeus’s thinking on the issue to clarify matters. He told me that Perry’s item was "incorrect".

Boot quoted the unnamed officer at some length apologizing for Israel:

He did not suggest that Petraeus was mainly blaming Israel and its settlements for the lack of progress. They are, he said, “one of many issues, among which also is the unwillingness to recognize Israel and the unwillingness to confront the extremists who threaten Israelis.” That’s about what I expected: Petraeus holds a much more realistic and nuanced view than the one attributed to him by terrorist groupie Mark Perry.

I suspect this unnamed officer was Petraeus himself-- based on the emails. But we'll get to them in a minute.

Read rest of story...