Category Archives: politics

Health Policy Institute of Ohio Launches Online Issue 3 Resource Page

The Health Policy Institute of Ohio launched today a page on its website dedicated to providing Ohioans with a non-partisan source for resources and information about state ballot Issue 3.

Issue 3 is a ballot initiative creating a state constitutional amendment aimed at preserving individual health care freedom.

If passed, Issue 3 will amend the Ohio Constitution to include the following language:

“In Ohio, no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system. In Ohio, no law or rule shall prohibit the purchase or sale of health care or health insurance. In Ohio, no law or rule shall impose a penalty or fine for the sale or purchase of health care or health insurance.”

To provide an understanding of the potential implications of Issue 3, HPIO has included analysis from:

Maurice Thompson, Exec. Director, 1851 Center for Constitutional Law
Janetta King, President of Innovation Ohio

“The purpose of the Health Policy Institute of Ohio is to provide state policymakers with the information and analysis they need to make informed health policy,” said HPIO President Amy Rohling McGee. “In the case of a ballot initiative, the voters are the policymakers and given that Issue 3 is a health policy issue, we wanted to make unbiased information and analysis accessible to Ohio voters.”

Click here to visit the Ohio Issue 3 resource page.

Obamacare’s Staggering Impact

By Mary Taylor
Ohio Lt. Gov. and Insurance Director

Since it was signed into law in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, has been the subject of intense debate. Both sides on this issue argue over its impact and what it truly means for consumers and health care in general. Now, thanks to an in-depth analysis of the law’s many provisions affecting Ohio, there is no doubt Obamacare will have a significant negative impact to our state and other states as well.

Earlier this year, as the Director of the Ohio Department of Insurance, I hired an independent consultant, Milliman, Inc., to review the requirements and mandates of Obamacare to determine its impact for Ohioans. They spent several months researching Ohio’s insurance market and laws to assess what our state will look like in 2014 and beyond.

The bottom line – health insurance premiums for individuals in Ohio will increase anywhere from 55 to 85 percent on average (not including current medical trends that are averaging 7 to 8 percent nationwide). Moreover, some Ohioans – depending on their current health status – may see their premiums increase by as much as 90 to 130 percent. These historic spikes in cost will hurt consumers at a time when health insurance is already going up.

In addition to significantly increasing premiums for individuals, the small group market will see extraordinary shifts and fluctuations. Even though overall increases in this market will be held to 5 to 15 percent (not including yearly medical trend), and some small groups will see decreases by as much as 40 percent, they will be subsidized by other small groups that could see premiums jump by as much as 150 percent depending on their current group health status.

As a CPA, I have no doubt these substantial changes will force many employers to drop coverage altogether because it is simply unaffordable and too unpredictable. This will result in more Ohioans moving into a government-subsidized program costing all taxpayers more money to pay for the health insurance subsidies for those that were previously covered by their employers.

The study also provides estimates for growth in Ohio’s Medicaid program because of changes mandated in Obamacare. These requirements are going to push more than 1 million people into Medicaid and potentially another 500,000 into the government-subsidized exchanges. When you add it all up, it’s possible that half of all Ohioans will receive some type of health coverage through a taxpayer-subsidized program once the law is fully implemented.

Advocates for the law would argue that even with the increase in premiums, insurance will still be more affordable because of the government subsidies provided in Obamacare. They would have you believe that while premiums will skyrocket, it doesn’t matter because the government will pay for substantial portions of the cost for many consumers. The truth is we do need to address the shortcomings in our current system, but our country cannot continue to spend at unprecedented and unsustainable levels.

There is a staggering price for every American attached to providing “free” or subsidized health care coverage. At a time when our country is $14 trillion in debt and when states are making hard choices to balance their budgets, this law is going to cause an explosion in health care spending never before seen. The federal government’s own actuary has predicted that government health care costs will represent 50 percent of all national health expenditures by 2020 and that health care spending in total will represent 20 percent of national GDP in that same year. This is unacceptable.

Handcuffing states with Obamacare’s one-size-fits-all approach is not the reform we need. Ohioans and Americans deserve a consumer-driven, market-based approach that is transparent and truly accountable for the cost and quality of healthcare – not a government-knows-best set of mandates.

Mary Taylor is Ohio’s 65th Lieutenant Governor. She was sworn into office on January 10, 2011, the same day Governor John R. Kasich named her to serve as the director of the Ohio Department of Insurance and to lead CSI Ohio: The Common Sense Initiative to reform Ohio’s regulatory policies. She is the only Certified Public Accountant elected to any state office in Ohio’s 208-year history.

A Critical Analysis of Netanyahu’s September 23, 2011 Speech to the United Nations

Prof. Paul Eidelberg, President
Israel-America Renaissance Institute

Part III. Netanyahu’s Self-Entrapment

Netanyahu’s September 23, 2011 speech to the UN revealed a prime minister trapped in the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of September 13, 1993. Step by step that agreement led him to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria on June 14, 2009 Bar-Ilan University, and without any expression of outrage from that religious institution or by the public at large. How did Netanyahu trap himself in this ignominious as well as anti-Jewish cul-de-sac?

In March 1993, Israel’s government was headed by Labor Party chairman Yizhak Rabin. In that month, the Central committee of the Likud party convened and appointed Benjamin Netanyahu as its leader. An eminent Likud member proposed a resolution to the effect that a future Likud Government would not be bound by any Labor-government agreement that compromised the security of Israel. This resolution was intended to short circuit Labor’s desire to recognize the PLO, the first step toward establishing a Palestinian state.

Netanyahu rejected the resolution on the grounds that a democracy must honor its agreements. This was an utterly fallacious opinion since no government is bound to an agreement that may eventually lead to its destruction. Nevertheless, the present writer was asked by a prominent Likud figure whether the United States had ever violated a treaty with a foreign power. I consulted my constitutional law books and unsurprisingly found that the U.S. government had in fact reneged on a nineteenth-century agreement with China, and that the government’s decision had been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thus, on May 6, 1882, an Act of Congress was approved which declared that after ninety days from the passage of the Act, and for a period of ten years from its date, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States is suspended, and that it shall be unlawful for any such laborer to come to, or, having come, to remain within the United States.” The Court ruled, with regard to the treaties of the country, that “circumstances may arise which would not only justify the Government in disregarding their stipulation, but also demand, in the interests of the country, that it should do so; [of which] there can be no question. Unexpected events may call for a change in the policy of the country.”[1]

At first blush it appears that Netanyahu succumbed to his ignorance of the law governing treaties. However, common sense alone dictates that if one party to an agreement repeatedly violates that agreement—as the PLO did on an almost daily basis—the other party has every right to abrogate the agreement at its own discretion. Of course, to have abrogated Oslo would have required politically courageous prime minister on the one hand, and a very different policy toward the Palestinians on the other.

Whatever the case, Mr. Netanyahu entrapped himself in the Oslo Agreement six months before that agreement was consummated. It should also be emphasized that the legality of the agreement was challenged by eminent Israeli citizens in a 78-page petition drafted by Attorney Howard Grief and submitted to the High Court of Justice (file HC 33414/96). The Court, notoriously left-wing, dismissed the suit as non-justiciable without discussing the merits, even though the petition accused the government of having violated several laws of the Knesset included sections 97, 99 and 100 of the Penal Law, which designates and prohibits four kinds of acts as treason:

1. the category of acts which “impair the sovereignty” of the State of Israel—section 97(a);

2. the category of acts which “impair the integrity” of the State of Israel—section 97(b);

3. the category of acts under section 99 which give assistance to an “enemy” in war against Israel, which the Law specifically states includes a terrorist organization;

4. the category of acts in section 100 which evince an intention or resolve to commit one of the acts prohibited by sections 97 and 99.

The punishment prescribed in the Penal Law for the first three kinds of acts of treason is death or imprisonment for life. Yielding Jewish land to the PLO does appear to be a prima facie violation of the treason law. This said, let us make a thought-experiment.

If a Prime Minister of Israel signs an agreement with his country’s enemy, an agreement that requires him to obscure the murderous creed and history of the enemy and even lie about the enemy’s bellicose intentions, a train of untoward consequences will follow affecting that Prime Minister’s successors. Suppose he is followed by six prime ministers. If the sixth prime minister were to reveal the truth about the enemy in question, he would be impugning the integrity of each and every one of his predecessors. And if a prima facie case could be made that that agreement constitutes a violation of the law governing treason, then, if that sixth prime minister revealed the truth about his country’s enemy—with whom that first prime minister entered into said agreement—he would be impugning all his predecessors, casting upon them the taint of treason. This is a mendacity trap from which no prime minister can readily escape.

Ohio Senate Approves Pro-Life Legislation

(COLUMBUS, OH) – The Ohio Senate passed House Bill 63, Ohio Right to Life’s Judicial Bypass legislation, by a 23 to 9 bipartisan vote this afternoon. This pro-life legislation will protect minors and their unborn children by closing loopholes and raising the bar to protect parents’ ability to care for their children.

“We thank Senate President Tom Niehaus and the pro-life members of the Senate who continue to advance life-saving policies,” said Mike Gonidakis, Executive Director of Ohio Right to Life. “H.B. 63 strengthens parents’ ability to care for their children and prevents lawyers and others from taking mom and dad’s place when the child needs them most.”

Current Ohio law states that parental consent is required before a minor can obtain an abortion, but a loophole exists which allows judges to bypass parental involvement and allow a minor to obtain an abortion. H.B. 63 puts an end to this “rubber-stamp” judicial approval.

Today’s vote on the Senate floor follows the overwhelming 64 to 33 bipartisan vote of support it received in the Ohio House earlier this year. After the House concurs with today’s passage of the legislation, the bill will be sent to pro-life Governor John Kasich to be signed into law.

A Critical Analysis of Netanyahu’s September 23, 2011Speech to the United Nations

Prof. Paul Eidelberg, President
Israel-America Renaissance Institute

Part I. Netanyahu’s Self-Incrimination

Near the outset of his speech, PM Netanyahu emphasized that, for the sake of peace, “Israel did more than just make sweeping offers [to her adversaries]. We actually left territory. We withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and from every square inch of Gaza in 2005. That didn’t calm the Islamic storm, the militant Islamic storm that threatens us. It only brought the storm closer and made it stronger.”

This factual statement of Netanyahu unwittingly reveals that Israel’s political leaders are ignorant concerning the implacable nature of Islam and are therefore incapable of making strategic decisions conducive to the security of their country.

Netanyahu goes on to say: “Hezbollah and Hamas fired thousands of rockets against our cities from the very territories we vacated.” To this I ask, “What morally responsible and self-respecting government would allow Israel’s enemies to fire so many rockets against Israel’s cities without retaliating after only a few rockets were fired?”

Oblivious of his incriminating Israel’s government, Mr. Netanyahu went on to say that leaving Gaza did not stop Muslims from attacking Israel. Now ponder his further admissions regarding Gaza:

We didn’t freeze the settlements in Gaza, we uprooted them. We did exactly what the theory [of land for peace] says: Get out, go back to the 1967 borders, dismantle the settlements. And I don’t think people remember how far we went to achieve this. We uprooted thousands of people from their homes. We pulled children out of — out of their schools and their kindergartens. We bulldozed synagogues. We even — we even moved loved ones from their graves.

What a monumental display of self-incrimination! This forced expulsion of Jews from their homes was an unspeakable crime. Perhaps Mr. Netanyahu is too callous or self-righteous to see this uprooting of innocent men, women, and children from their homes and bulldozing their synagogues as a crime. His own father Benzion Netanyahu denounced the projected expulsion as a crime! I would only add it was a desecration of God’s Name.

Nor is this all. Listening to PM Netanyahu’s speech to the UN, the intelligent observer will ask: “Didn’t it occur to you that expelling the Jews from Gaza had grave military consequences, namely, that all of Gaza would become a launching pad for rocket attacks against your country?” Were you deaf to the warnings of your military and intelligence experts?”

Indeed, Israel’s highest defense and intelligence officials, Moshe Ya’alon (IDF Chief of Staff), Maj. Gen. Aharon Ze’evi-Farkash (head of IDF Intelligence), and Avi Dichter (Director of the Shin Bet—General Security Service), all warned against the Gaza withdrawal.

On January 5, 2005, in testimony before the Knesset Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee, Dichter described the threats inherent in pulling the IDF from the Gaza Strip: “In a situation where Israel is not in control of the Philadelphi corridor [which separates Gaza from the Sinai Peninsula], terrorists arriving from Lebanon are liable to infiltrate through it into the Gaza Strip and there is the distinct possibility that in a short while the Gaza Strip will turn into south Lebanon.” Dichter also cautioned that the current “trickle” of arms smuggling through the corridor is liable to turn into a “river.”

On September 28, 2005, Farkash warned that Al-Qaida members are in the Palestinian-controlled Gaza Strip after infiltrating while the border with Egypt was opened two weeks ago.

Ya’alon warned, in interview published in Ha’aretz on June 3, 2005, that disengagement will lead to a renewal of the terrorist war in the West Bank.

On July 23, 2005, Maj. Gen, Yaacov Amidror (who served as commander of Israel’s School of National Security until 2002) warned: “There is no military advantage to leaving Gaza. You lose control on the ground, the ability to conduct intelligence operations and to stage ground efforts into Gaza City and Khan Yunis. You let Hamas and Islamic Jihad have a safe haven to launch terrorist actions from and in which to grow their terror apparatus.”

Despite all this, Netanyahu had the audacity to remind the UN how the entire world applauded Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza as “an act of great statesmanship … bold act of peace.” “But ladies and gentlemen,” he added, “we didn’t get peace. We got war. We got Iran, which through its proxy Hamas promptly kicked out the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority collapsed in a day—in one day.”

That’s right, Mr. Netanyahu, but I ask you: On what empirical grounds, on what historical grounds, on what logical grounds, on what psychological grounds, on what theological grounds, had you any reason to expect peace after this display of defeatism and this unconscionable crime against the Jews of Gaza?

(To be continued)

Grandparents Caring for Children

By Marian Wright Edelman

At a time in life when many are beginning to ease into retirement and enjoying a little more free time, Mr. and Mrs. B. found themselves unexpectedly starting all over again-struggling to care for their adopted daughter’s two young sons. Their daughter’s bipolar disorder was recognized very late, and though she stays involved in her sons’ lives, neither she nor their father were able to be a full-time parent. So the boys went to live with their grandparents. As in all families with children, there’s always something happening that demands attention and this family has had very serious needs. When their youngest grandson was also diagnosed with bipolar disorder, Mr. and Mrs. B. had trouble finding a good doctor to care for him. Then Mrs. B. was diagnosed with cancer. But
there are no regrets: “There’s no ‘us time,'” Mr. B says, “but I would do it again in a heartbeat.”

Their family isn’t alone. Lots of us who are grandparents are used to stepping in and caring for grandchildren from time to time. I know my husband and I have spent many evenings and weekends on “grandma and grandpa duty,” and loved every wonderful but exhausting moment! But many grandparents and other family members are going far beyond the occasional Saturday night or long weekend. Since all children deserve safe, permanent and loving families, when parents can’t care for their children-they may have died, be incarcerated, or be struggling with substance abuse or other health or mental health challenges-relatives like Mr. and Mrs. B. often end up “parenting a second time around.” They step in to give their grandchildren or nieces or nephews the love and stability they need and avoid the need for foster care with strangers.

As rampant unemployment and housing foreclosures ravage families across our nation, an increasing number of children are living in households headed by grandparents and other relatives, often three generations sharing scarce resources due to the recession. Nearly 7.8 million children live in households headed by a grandparent or other relative. More than 2.5 million grandparents report they are responsible for grandchildren living with them-a third with no parent present. Black children are twice as likely as all children to live with their grandparents or other relatives only.

These grandparents and other relatives are providing vital care, stability, and continuity to millions of America’s most vulnerable children. They are keeping children safe and families together: children raised by relatives are more likely to be placed with siblings and less likely to lose touch with their cultural traditions and community connections. But this enormous responsibility can have many effects on caregivers’ own lives and financial stability. Many are still working and many others live on fixed incomes. Twenty percent of grandparents raising grandchildren are poor and many relative caregivers need financial help and other forms of support. Often caregivers unexpectedly thrust into this role may be hesitant to share their new challenges with others, and if they do, often find it difficult to connect with networks to find programs and assistance for which they are eligible.

That’s why on September 15th grandparents and other relative caregivers from across the country gathered on the West Lawn of the U. S. Capitol to participate in the Fourth National GrandRally for Grandparents and Other Relatives Raising Children sponsored by AARP, Child Welfare League of America, Children’s Defense Fund, Generations United, GrandFamilies of America, and National Committee of Grandparents for Children’s Rights. The GrandRally saught to educate Congress about the importance of relative caregivers, the challenges they face, and the contributions they make. With scarce resources and a tumultuous economy, relatives’ critical role in keeping children safe and in stable homes will be highlighted along with the important role Social Security plays in helping caregivers assume care of related children.

The Children’s Defense Fund often gets calls from grandparents and other relative caregivers seeking sources of financial assistance. In recent months, many have called to tell us they’ve been laid off and need financial help to continue caring for their grandchildren. They are often embarrassed by their circumstances and afraid to contact public agencies for assistance, fearful their grandchildren will be taken away and placed in foster care. Grandparent caregivers often face barriers to participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/Food Stamps) or qualifying their grandchildren for the National School Lunch Program. And while Social Security provides needed support for grandparents, grandchildren aren’t always eligible for benefits.

Over the last decade youth unemployment has soared, adding extra stress for grandfamilies already struggling to keep grandchildren in high school and now worrying about them finding a job if they do graduate. The percentage of youths ages 16-19 employed in 2010 was the lowest since the end of World War II. While specific data on youths with relative caregivers are unavailable, the teen employment rate dropped to 27 percent in 2010 – only one in five teens in a low income family was working. Even youths whose grandparents helped them graduate from college are likely to be employed at much lower salaries in jobs that do not use their college degrees. Nearly half of all Associate Degree holders and one-third of Bachelor Degree holders were mal-employed in 2010.

Three past GrandRallies inspired caregivers to establish support groups and create kinship navigator programs to connect children to supports for which they are eligible. Relative caregivers organized state and local coalitions, held State GrandRallies to educate local policymakers about children’s needs and conducted statewide kinship care conferences. Some were invited to return to Washington, D.C. to share their stories at Congressional briefings.

For more information about the GrandRally, visit www.grandrally.org.You can also find out more about children in your own state being raised by grandparents and other relatives on the AARP Website.

Marian Wright Edelman is President of the Children’s Defense Fund whose Leave No Child Behind® mission is to ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start and a Moral Start in life and successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities. For more information go to www.childrensdefense.org.

The Real Iran of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

by Raymond Ibrahim

In a globalized world where debate and diplomacy predominate, there is one sure way to discern the sincerity of any particular government: see how it behaves at home, where it is in power; see especially how it treats its minorities.

Consider the government of Iran. Gearing up for the Durban III Conference, supposedly against racism, scheduled to take place in New York City this week, Tehran and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad no doubt plan on complaining to the international community about Israel as in former conferences—portraying the Jewish state as “the most cruel and repressive racist regime,” a “barbaric” government that engages in “inhuman policies” against the Palestinians.

Yet what sort of government runs Iran—that is, how do Ahmadinejad and the mullahs behave on their own turf, where they are in control? One need only look to Iran’s daily domestic affairs to get a clear idea of what “barbaric,” “cruel,” and “inhuman policies” are truly like.

In the last few days alone, officials launched a Bible burning campaign, confiscating and destroying some 7,000 Bibles, many publicly burned, even as the mainstream media, which provided round-the-clock coverage on Terry Jones—one nonofficial American who destroyed one Koran—ignores the mass Bible bonfires held by a government. Likening its tiny Christian minority to the “Taliban and parasites,” the regime is also in the process of “cracking down” on Christians, who make up less than 1% of the entire population.

The West’s endless supply of apologists—the sort who think it makes them appear “sophisticated” and “enlightened” to be tolerant of anything, so long as it doesn’t directly affect them—will likely argue that the Bible is just a book. As for “cracking down” on Christians, “Who knows,” these dedicated relativists will probably argue, “maybe Iran’s beleaguered Christian minority is just as bad as the Taliban?”

Here, then, is an indefensible example of Iran’s blatant savagery—proof that it should not cast stones until it joins the concert of civilized nations. According to Compass Direct News:

A pastor in Iran found guilty of leaving Islam awaits the outcome of a judicial investigation into his spiritual background to see if he will be executed or, if possible, forced to become a Muslim… The court-ordered investigation will take place sometime this fall to determine whether Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, 34, was a Muslim as a teenager before he became a Christian at 19.

Last year the pastor was sentenced by a regional court to death by hanging for “convert[ing] to Christianity” and “encourag[ing] other Muslims to convert to Christianity.” After his lawyer argued that he “had never actually been a Muslim and therefore could not be found guilty of abandoning the religion,” the court, while continuing to uphold the death penalty, ordered an “investigation.” Yet the burden of proof is on the victim: he must “prove that from puberty (15 years) to 19 he was not Muslim”—by getting acquaintances, relatives, local elders, and Muslims to vouch for him.

However, “if it can be proved that he was a practicing Muslim as an adult and [he] has not repented [i.e. returned to Islam], the execution will be carried out.” Moreover, “even if the investigation releases him from the charge of apostasy, it is likely the charge of evangelizing Muslims will still carry a lengthy prison sentence, sources said.”

In other words, while imprisoning and executing people simply because they want to live according to their conscience—a most basic human right—Iran complains to the world that Israel is “barbaric,” “cruel,” and “inhuman.”

But there is no contradiction; both slandering Israel and murdering Christians are perfectly consistent. In each case, Iran seeks the destruction of the “other”—whether Christian or Jew. At home in Iran, where it is in power, it destroys its Christian minority with impunity, in front of the whole world; on the international stage, where it is currently weak, it seeks to destroy Israel by exploiting the West’s lofty language and acting “outraged.”

Worst of all, this affair does not merely expose Iran’s hypocrisy; it exposes the United Nation’s utopist foolishness. By allowing heads of the most notorious human rights abusing states, such as Iran and genocidal Sudan, to attend conferences that supposedly deal with “racism” and “human rights,” the UN actually exposes itself as a facilitator of human rights abuses.

Originally published by Hudson New York on September 21, 2011.

Raymond Ibrahim, a widely published Islam-specialist, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

President Obama to the U.N. General Assembly: Peace & Middle East

President Obama’s speech was presented before the U.N General Assembly on Wednesday September 21, 2011.

P.A.’s Abbas’ New York Times Op-Ed Filled With Lies

by Morton Klein

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has pointed out that, in the op-ed space granted to Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas in the New York Times (May 16), Abbas has produced a collection of shameless falsehoods.

• “It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued” [ZOA: Abbas neglects to mention that the Palestinians and Arab states utterly rejected the offer the UN proposal of a state and instead went to war to prevent Israel’s emergence.

• “Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued” [ZOA: In fact, the Arab side launched attacks on Palestine’s Jews even before the end of the British Mandate and the proclamation of Israel’s establishment in May 1948. In anticipation of the impending invasion of Arab armies, which commenced the day Israel was declared, many Arabs started leaving while still under British rule. Often, Jewish appeals for Arabs to stay, as in Haifa and Tiberias, went unheeded. Most of those Palestinian Arabs who left did so in the chaos and fog of the war which they and the neighboring Arab states had initiated. In contrast, every Jew was expelled from the West Bank, illegally seized by Jordan. Had there been no Arab-initiated war, there would have been no refugees – on either side.]

• “Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, the United States granted it recognition. Our Palestinian state, however, remains a promise unfulfilled … Only if the international community keeps the promise it made to us six decades ago, and ensures that a just resolution for Palestinian refugees is put into effect, can there be a future of hope and dignity for our people” [ZOA: The UN General Assembly in 1947 recommended the creation of an Arab state and a Jewish state in Palestine, which was an international offer of statehood – not a “promise” – and it was utterly rejected, as mentioned, the Palestinians and Arab states at the time. The Arab parties were explicit about their reasons – they rejected the legitimacy of a Jewish state alongside an Arab state. That rejection persists from Mr. Abbas to this day, who has said that, “I do not accept the Jewish State, call it what you will.” In 2000, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered a Palestinian state on almost all the territories mentioned by Abbas, but was turned down. During 1948-67, no Palestinian state was set up, despite Judea, Samaria and Gaza then being under Arab control, because the primary goal was and remains Israel’s elimination, not a Palestinian state].

• “Israel continues to send more settlers to the occupied West Bank and denies Palestinians access to most of our land and holy places, particularly in Jerusalem” [ZOA: All Muslim shrines, like the Al Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock, have functioned continuously in Jerusalem under Israel rule. Jerusalem’s Arab population has increased, as has Arab construction. In fact, it is only under Israeli rule that there has been genuine freedom of religion in historic Jerusalem. Under its previous (and illegal) Jordanian occupiers, every synagogue was razed and Jews were barred from merely visiting the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site. Under Abbas’ PA, Jewish shrines, like Joseph’s Tomb, have been torched and violated. Last year, his government published an official “study” claiming that Jews have no rights or historical connection to the Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. In Gaza, under Hamas, with which Abbas has just signed a unity agreement, most Christians have fled for their lives.]

• “we have met all prerequisites to statehood listed in the Montevideo Convention, the 1933 treaty that sets out the rights and duties of states …” [ZOA: The PA does not meet all necessary international legal criteria for statehood. It does not exercise control in defined territory, as Israel shares in a range of responsibilities by agreement in at least some PA-controlled areas, while PA rule has not extended for years to Hamas-run Gaza and still does not at time of writing. Moreover, the PA is a signatory to the Oslo Agreements in which it committed itself to not altering the political status of the PA territories, except by a negotiated settlement with Israel.]

• “The State of Palestine intends to be a peace-loving nation, committed to human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the principles of the United Nations Charter. Once admitted to the United Nations, our state stands ready to negotiate all core issues of the conflict with Israel” [ZOA: The PA is a terrorist-supporting entity run by Fatah, whose Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is a deadly and proscribed terrorist organization which has murdered hundreds of Israeli civilians. Scores of streets, schools and sports teams have been named in honor of terrorists who murdered Jews. Fatah’s’ 43rd anniversary emblem shows all of Israel draped in a kffiyeh, with a picture of Arafat and a Kalashnikov rifle alongside it. It recently signed a unity government agreement with Hamas, which calls in its Charter for the destruction of Israel (Article 15) and the murder of Jews (Article 7). In seeking to circumvent negotiations and alter the political status, Abbas fails to mention that any such unilateral act violates the 1995 Oslo II agreement, which stipulates that “Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”]

• “A key focus of negotiations will be reaching a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on Resolution 194, which the General Assembly passed in 1948” [ZOA: UN General Assembly Resolution 194 is a non-binding resolution that all Arab states rejected at the time. Every refugee problem of the twentieth century has been resolved by resettlement, not repatriation, which the PA demands].

• “We go to the United Nations now to secure the right to live free in the remaining 22 percent of our historic homeland because we have been negotiating with the State of Israel for 20 years without coming any closer to realizing a state of our own” [ZOA: The land earmarked for the British Mandate and for settlement by Jews with a view to eventual Jewish statehood includes present-day Jordan, which constitutes 78% of the territory in question. It is Israel itself, plus Judea, Samaria and Gaza, which constitutes 22% of the territory earmarked for Jewish settlement, of which 12% was offered in 1947 for a Jewish state and 10% for another Arab state]

Read Mahmoud Abbas’ NYT article by clicking here.

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “The Palestinian Authority’s Mahmoud Abbas has shown in his New York Times op-ed that his historical revisionism is not limited to the Holocaust, which he denied in a 1982 doctoral thesis at Moscow’s Oriental College and in 1983 book; it extends to the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948. It is a tragic commentary on our times that such a mendacious and error-ridden piece could be published in a leading newspaper.”

There Is No Palestinian State

by Efraim Karsh

As the United Nations prepares to vote next week on the issue of Palestinian statehood, it might be worth bearing in mind that whatever the outcome, the result will certainly not be the creation of an actual Palestinian state, any more than the November 1947 partition resolution spelled the inevitable creation of a Jewish one.

In 1948, Israel came into being due to the extraordinary cohesion of Palestine’s Jewish community (the Yishuv). Armed with an unwavering sense of purpose and an extensive network of institutions, the Yishuv managed to surmount a bevy of international obstacles and fend off a pan-Arab attempt to destroy it. Likewise, it was the total lack of communal solidarity—the willingness to subordinate personal interest to the collective good—that accounted for the collapse and dispersion of Palestinian Arab society as its leaders tried to subvert partition.
Sixty-four years later, Palestinian society seems no better prepared for statehood. And the U.N. would be doing the Palestinians a great disservice by accepting the corrupt and dysfunctional Palestinian Authority as its newest member. While this would hardly be the first failed state to be delivered by the world organization, the unique circumstances of its possible birth make failure a foregone conclusion, and the consequences are too dire to contemplate.

The building of the Jewish state began in the Swiss town of Basel in 1889 at the First Zionist Congress, which defined Zionism’s goal as “the creation of a home for the Jewish people in Palestine to be secured by public law,” and established institutions to promote it. By the time the League of Nations appointed Britain as the mandatory for Palestine 23 years later, the Yishuv had been transformed into a cohesive and organized national community that provided most of Palestine’s Jewry with work, trade union protection as well as with education, health care, and defense.

By contrast, it was the tragedy of the Palestinians that the two leaders who determined their national development during the 20th century—Hajj Amin Husseini and Yasser Arafat—were far more interested in destroying the Jewish national cause than leading their own people. As far back as 1978, Arafat told his close friend and collaborator, Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, that the Palestinians lacked the traditions, unity, and discipline to have a successful state. Once given control of parts of the West Bank and Gaza, this prognosis became a self-fulfilling prophecy, as his regime quickly became oppressive and corrupt. Later it helped launch the second intifada, the bloodiest and most destructive confrontation between Israelis and Palestinians since the 1948 war. In the process, he destroyed the fragile civil society and relatively productive economy that had developed during the previous decade.

Paradoxically, it was Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip during the June 1967 war that laid the groundwork for Palestinian civil society. Not only did it bring the issue of Palestinian independence to the forefront of the international agenda, but it also produced dramatic improvements in the Palestinians’ quality of life. During the occupation, the territories became the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world—ahead of Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. From 1967 to 2000, life expectancy rose from 48 to 72, while infant mortality fell from 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 births in 2000. And while there was not a single university that existed in the West Bank or Gaza before Israeli rule, by the mid-1990s, there were seven such institutions, boasting more than 16,000 students.

All of these achievements were steadily undone after Oslo, as Arafat’s regime took control over parts of the territories. In September of 1993, conditions in the West Bank and Gaza were still better than those in most neighboring Arab states—and this despite the economic decline caused by the first intifada. Within six months of Arafat’s arrival in Gaza, the standard of living in the strip fell by 25 percent, and more than half of the area’s residents claimed to have been happier under Israeli rule. The launch of the second intifada six years later dealt the death blow to the economic and institutional gains that Israel bequeathed.

In an apparent departure from this destructive path, in the summer of 2007, PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad embarked on the first true state-building effort in Palestinian history. And he has had some modest successes, most notably a sustained economic recovery that has nearly restored the West Bank’s pre-intifada levels of performance. Yet Fayyad has created no new institutions, and the PA remains a corrupt and wholly dysfunctional organization. The Palestinian prime minister may claim to have laid the groundwork for a democratic Palestine, but the presidency of Mahmoud Abbas, and by extension his own position, are totally unconstitutional. Not only did Abbas defy Hamas’s landslide victory in the January 2006 parliamentary election, but Abbas’s presidency expired more than two years ago.

No less important, the two factions dominating Palestinian life, the Hamas and Fatah, remain armed groups, and active practitioners of terrorism—an assured recipe for a failed state. The Oslo Accords charged the PA to dismantle all armed groups in the West Bank and Gaza, but Arafat never complied; David Ben-Gurion, by contrast, dissolved all Jewish underground movements within a fortnight from Israel’s independence, incorporating them into the newly established Israeli Defense Forces. Following statehood, even if Abbas were to make a genuine commitment to reform, Hamas would continue to defy his tenuous authority; not only does the group rule the Gaza Strip, which it has transformed into an Islamist micro-state, but it also wields considerable power in the West Bank.

Small wonder that recent surveys show that more Palestinians in east Jerusalem, who are entitled to Israeli social benefits and are free to travel across Israel’s pre-1967 borders, would rather become citizens of the Jewish state than citizens of a new Palestinian one. Two thirds of them believe that a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence backed by the U.N. would have no positive effect. And they’re right. Unfortunately the ramifications—increased conflict with Israel and a deepening rift in an already divided Palestinian society—are manifold. Once again, the Palestinian leadership is leading its people astray.

This article was originally published in the The Daily Beast on September 16, 2011.

Efraim Karsh is research professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King’s College London, director of the Middle East Forum (Philadelphia) and author, most recently, of Palestine Betrayed.