'Navy prepared to board flotilla ships if they don't stop'

On anniversary of 'Marmara' operation, senior Navy officer says Israel preparing "surprises" for new flotilla to Gaza, soldiers under order to use force but objective will be to take over ships non-violently.

The Israel Navy is prepared to intercept and take control of the ships participating in the new flotilla to the Gaza Strip, a senior Navy officer said Tuesday on the anniversary of the IDF operation to stop the Mavi Marmara that ended in the death of nine Turkish nationals.

"We will order the ship to stop, but if they don't, we are prepared to intercept and board the ship," a senior officer told reporters.
The flotilla of 15 ships, organized by the Turkish humanitarian organization, IHH - which is outlawed in Israel due to its ties with Hamas, as well as The Free Gaza Movement - is planning to sail to the Gaza Strip in late June.

The organizers are currently working to raise funds to purchase the necessary ships for the flotilla and the predictions are that it is possible that they will have to delay their launch date by several days and even weeks.

The Israel Navy has been asked by the government to prepare an operational response to prevent the flotilla from breaking the sea blockade that Israel has imposed over the Gaza Strip. Under the blockade, Gazan fisherman are allowed to sail three kilometers off the coast of Gaza but no further. Ships are not allowed to enter waters that are twenty kilometers from the Gaza Strip.

According to international maritime laws, however, the Israel Navy is allowed to intercept and take control of a ship that declares its intentions to sail to Gaza even before it enters the waters that are under the blockade.

The Navy has been conducting training exercises in recent weeks in conjunction with the Air Force and in line with the lessons learned from last year's flotilla. Members of Israel Police and the Prison Service, who specialize in quelling civilian protests and violence, will participate in the operation to stop the flotilla together with the commandos from the Navy Flotilla 13, better known as the "Shayetet."

The senior Navy officer said that Israel was preparing a number of "surprises" for the ships that are expected to participate in the flotilla.

He said that soldiers were under order to use force to neutralize armed danger and neutralize attackers if necessary, but that in general, the objective and the goal would be to take over the ship non-violently and without casualties on either side.

On May 31 2010, the Israel Navy stopped a Turkish flotilla and when commandos boarded the Mavi Marmara they were attacked by a group of mercenaries.

In ensuing violence, nine of the mercenaries were killed, and a number of Israeli commandos were seriously wounded.

In addition to military preparation, the Foreign Ministry is leading Israeli efforts to convince other countries to use necessary means to prevent the flotilla from departing to Gaza.

Cut, Cap, and Balance

As you probably have heard by now, the United States has reached its statutory debt limit, and the Treasury Department each day performs “extraordinary measures” to prevent the federal government from having to make any real choices to reduce debt or prioritize spending.

As of right now, only one entity on Capitol Hill has put forward a serious, robust plan to truly reform the way Washington budgets and spends taxpayer dollars, so that we never again hit the debt ceiling. It’s the U.S. House Republican Study Committee (RSC)—and the plan is called “Cut, Cap, and Balance.”

The RSC, led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), articulates its Cut, Cap, and Balance plan in a letter, soon to be sent to House leadership (I’m told they have 90 signatures on the letter so far but are still gathering more). In the letter, they first state unequivocally that they will not vote for a debt-ceiling increase without accompanying cuts and reforms, saying, “…if we do not reverse the out-of-control spending that has led us here, it would be grossly irresponsible for us to extend the limit on the national credit card.”

Exactly right.

Then the RSC makes its demands:

1. Americans deserve immediate spending cuts that demonstrate that we are charting a swift path toward a balanced budget. We must implement discretionary and mandatory spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half next year.
2. To ensure that spending cuts continue, we need statutory, enforceable total-spending caps to reduce federal spending to 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with automatic spending reductions if the caps are breached–an approach taken in a bill by Rep. Mack and in another bill by Reps. Kingston, Flake, and Graves.
3. To fundamentally and permanently reform the way that Washington budgets and spends, we must send to the states a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) with strong protections against federal tax increases and including a Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA) like the statutory spending caps described above. Rep. Joe Walsh has introduced a BBA with a spending limit provision (H.J.Res. 56) that has already earned the support of 47 Republican senators.

In short: Cut, Cap, and Balance.

Learn more about this plan at the website http://www.cutcapbalance.com/, and let’s help our friends at the RSC build more support for it.

The Foreseeable Consequence of the “Arab Spring”

“The people of Egypt have spoken. Their voices have been heard and Egypt will never be the same. By stepping down, President Mubarak responded to the Egyptian people’s hunger for change, but this is not the end of Egypt’s transition. It’s the beginning.”
Barrack Hussein Obama, president and inadvertent prophet.

We’ve been skeptical of the so-called Arab Spring since the very beginning. Months ago we pointed out that the Muslim Brotherhood was assuming a leadership role in the demonstrations and the follow on ruling claque. Given the general state of political development in the Arab we were doubtful that anything favorable, or even desirable, would emerge from street demonstrations taking place in societies where there is no legal political opposition.

Now we have an idea of what the Arab Spring will look like.

A group of Egyptian political activists have announced plans to set up a local version “of the Nazi party,” an Egyptian newspaper reported on Thursday.

Citing a leftist Egyptian news portal, the Al-Masry Al-Youm daily said that “the party’s founding deputy is a former military official,” and that the party would be aimed at bringing “together prominent figures from the Egyptian society.”

The report cited founding member Emad Abdel Sattar as saying that the unestablished party “believes in vesting all powers in the president after selecting him or her carefully,” and that “preparations are under way to choose the most competent person to represent the party.”

The Arab world has had a long romance with Nazi philosophy. When one looks at the Nasserite and Ba’ath movements one is struck by the similarities: rule by a strong man, government control of business and industry, extreme nationalism, scapegoating minorities, etc. During World War II, Nazi parties sprang up throughout that region of the world. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem openly allied with Nazi Germany and appealed to Hitler for help in evicting Jewish settlers. Rick Atkinson documents in An Army at Dawn how the Arab population in North Africa cheered the fall of France, not because of hope of independence but because of the popularity of Nazism. The Young Egypt Movement adopted many of the trappings of the Original Nazis^TM including a street brawling “Green Shirt” organization. In the aftermath of World War II, dozens of Nazi war criminals sought refuge in the Arab world, so many, in fact, that when the Haganah captured Haifa in 1948 one of the terms of the truce was that all Nazis had to be turned over to the British military. Werner von Braun’s V-2 colleagues found a welcome in Egypt. Mein Kampf remains a bestseller in the Arab world.

All of this was foreseeable but none of it mattered to this administration whose foreign policy resembles nothing so much as a schoolyard bully groveling to perceived superiors but taking the lunch money of the weaker. But as I noted in my earlier piece on Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood, the life of a liberal seems to be a series of unpleasant surprises.

Though Mubarak’s Egypt was no garden spot of democracy there is no hint that the successor regime in Egypt will be any more democratic but every sign it will be hostile to our interests in the Middle East and quite probably it will abrogate the Camp David Accords in the process.

So Obama was right. Egypt will never be the same. Great job, Mr. President, I hope you’re proud of what you accomplished here. Allahu akbar. Seig heil. Whatever.

Thank Speaker Boehner for Blocking Obama Recess Appointments

You need to call Speaker Boehner’s office right now at 202-225-0600 and thank him for the extraordinary step he took this week to slow down President Obama’s radical agenda.

With the Obama legislative agenda stalled, the left has turned its attention toward using the Executive power to accomplish their socialist goals. The key to this strategy is to the pack agencies, boards, and commissions such as the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, with leftists like Craig Becker and Elizabeth Warren who will advance the collectivist agenda, regardless of whether there is any legal authority to do so.

The Senate has blocked several of the more radical nominees, but under the Constitution, President Obama has the power to appoint them during a Congressional recess.

Republican Senators warned Obama not to use his recess powers to appoint Becker to the NLRB. He did it anyhow. Becker didn’t disappoint, leading the NLRB to accuse Boeing of violating workers rights by opening a plant in South Carlolina.

Observers expect him to appoint leftists to the Obamacare Independent Payment Advisory Board, they expect him to appoint liberal Peter Diamond to the Federal Reserve Board, along with Warren, Becker, and a host of other leftwing radicals. He can even recess appoint Federal judges to rubber stamp his agenda until the end of the Congress.

Obama needs two things in order to do this – (1) a pen (or, I suppose, an autopen), and a (2) a Senate recess. The Constitution is unclear how long a recess is required. Most constitutional scholars say ten days is the minimum. However, there is almost universal agreement among scholars that a recess of less than three days does not trigger the recess appointment power. In 2007, Reid held “pro-forma” Senate sessions every three days, which successfully prevented Bush from making recess appointments.

Which brings us to another provision in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 5 says “Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days[.]”. This means that without the consent of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, the Senate cannot adjourn for more than three days, and thus President Obama cannot make any recess appointments.

On Wednesday, 20 Senators led by David Vitter and Jim DeMint wrote a letter to Speaker Boehner asking him to use his authority under Article 1, Section 5 to block the recess appointments.

On Friday, the Examiner reported that Speaker Boehner did not pass a resolution giving the Senate permission to adjourn. Therefore, as he did in 2007, Harry Reid will convene pro-forma sessions today, on Tuesday May 31, and on Friday June 3rd, in order to block his own President from doing recess appointments.

Reid was forced to do this because of the leadership of Speaker Boehner. We must thank our Speaker.

Call Speaker Boehner at 202-225-0600 and thank him for his leadership.

Tell him to continue to refuse to allow the Senate to adjourn for the remainder of the Obama Presidency.

Saudi-Iran Feud Draws Sectarian Line Across Mideast Oilfields

Diners at Shayan in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia’s capital, are assured by a sign near the cash register that they can enjoy the restaurant’s Persian food without worrying about Iranians profiting. The establishment is Saudi- owned, it says.

Saudi fulmination against Iranian interference in the Persian Gulf finds its mirror image in Tehran. There, buses bring doctors and schoolgirls to join protests outside the Saudi embassy, as clerics, ministers and state-run media denounce the deployment of Saudi troops to Bahrain.

The Gulf, home to three-fifths of the world’s oil reserves, has largely escaped the violence that accompanied uprisings in Egypt, Libya and other countries this year. The main exception, though, carries the risk of a wider conflict. Bahrain’s Saudi- backed rulers are using force to suppress an opposition that mostly shares Iran’s Shiite faith -- exacerbating the rivalry between the region’s two most powerful and oil-rich countries.

It’s “frightening to think of this conflict and the effects on oil and other markets,” said Paul Sullivan, a political scientist specializing in Middle East security at Georgetown University.

Saudi Arabia, like Bahrain a Sunni monarchy and key U.S. ally, sent more than 1,000 troops to its neighbor, the largest component of a Gulf force named Peninsula Shield.

Protesters Killed

They arrived March 15, the day Bahrain’s ruling Al Khalifa family declared a state of emergency after a month of pro- democracy demonstrations. Security forces have killed more than 20 protesters. Human rights groups say many more have been jailed and tortured since the Saudi intervention while Shiite mosques have been destroyed, a charge the government denies.

Shiites are a majority in Bahrain. In Saudi Arabia, where they make up about 15 percent of the population, officials accuse Iran of stoking opposition to Sunni rulers.

“Iranian sectarianism is the cause of the tension,” Sheikh Abdul Mohsen al-Obeikan, an adviser to King Abdullah’s Royal Court, said in an interview in Riyadh. Bahrain’s protesters “strayed away from just asking for basic demands and went on to threats,” he said. “That’s why Bahrain’s government agreed to receive the Peninsula Shield.”

‘Hawkish Wing’

It was Bahrain’s rulers who widened sectarian schisms by crushing the protests, said Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, a lecturer at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. “Bahrain was not a Shiite-Sunni issue until the rather more hawkish wing of the al-Khalifa family decided to turn it into one,” partly in order to signal to the U.S. that any alternative regime would be pro-Iran, he said.

Other Gulf countries are also targeting Iran. Kuwait, whose Shiite minority protested the Peninsula Shield deployment, sentenced two Iranians and one Kuwaiti to death for spying in March.

Crude prices have jumped almost 20 percent to about $100 a barrel since unrest in Bahrain and Libya began mid-February. That increase suits Iran’s strategy better than Saudi Arabia’s, according to Jarmo Kotilaine, chief economist at National Commercial Bank in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

“Saudi Arabia has a long history of fostering stability in the oil markets,” he said. “Iran wants to produce more oil at higher prices.”

Iran had 138 billion barrels of reserves at the end of 2009, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Saudi Arabia had 265 billion. The kingdom is the world’s biggest oil exporter, and spends some of the revenue arming itself. It has agreed to buy $60 billion of equipment including Boeing Co. (BA) F-15 fighter jets and attack helicopters.

King Urged Attack

Iran, suspected by the U.S. and allies of seeking to develop atomic weapons, is the perceived threat behind that defense spending. King Abdullah urged the U.S. to attack Iran, “cut off the head of the snake” and halt its nuclear program, U.S. diplomats reported in cables released by WikiLeaks. In another cable from August 2008, U.S. diplomats said there had been “no convincing evidence of Iranian weapons or government money” in Bahrain for more than a decade.

Saudi and Bahraini rulers haven’t presented evidence of Iranian involvement there. Iranian leaders point to Saudi troops, dead Shiites and bulldozed mosques.

Cleric Ayatollah Sheikh Mohsen Araki, a former member of the Assembly of Experts, the Islamic republic’s top religious body, issued a fatwa condemning those he said were involved in demolishing mosques and killing Muslims in Bahrain.

Schoolgirl Chants

“Death to the infidel Saudi regime,” a group of schoolgirls chanted May 3 outside the Saudi embassy in Tehran. State-run Press TV has broadcast footage of wounded Bahraini protesters in their hospital beds.

The two countries squaring off over Bahrain lie at the heart of regional alliance networks.

Iran supports Syrian President Bashar al-Assad -- a ruler from a minority sect with Shiite connections who’s seeking to crush protests in a mostly Sunni country -- and has developed ties with Iraq’s Shiite-led government. In Lebanon, Iran backs the Shiite Hezbollah movement, which toppled the government of Saad Hariri, a U.S. and Saudi ally, in January.

The Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council said this month it may add Sunni monarchies Jordan and Morocco to its six members.

Tensions date back to Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini accused Saudi rulers of corruption and argued that the holy sites of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia shouldn’t be under a single country’s guardianship.

Past sparring has now “become a reality,” and the violence in Bahrain probably isn’t over, said Theodore Karasik, director of research at the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis.

“Some Shiite Bahrainis may try to retaliate,” Karasik said. “After the government’s crackdown, there is very little room for compromise.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Glen Carey in Riyadh at gcarey8@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andrew J. Barden at barden@bloomberg.net.

• 
  

Seductive BeliefsBy Thomas Sowell

One of the painfully revealing episodes in Barack Obama's book "Dreams From My Father" describes his early experience listening to a sermon by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Among the things said in that sermon was that "white folks' greed runs a world in need." Obama was literally moved to tears by that sermon.

This sermon may have been like a revelation to Barack Obama but its explanation of economic and other differences was among the oldest-- and most factually discredited-- explanations of such difference among all sorts of peoples in all sorts of places. Yet it is an explanation that has long been politically seductive, in countries around the world.

What could be more emotionally satisfying than seeing others who have done better in the world as the villains responsible for your not having done as well? It is the ideal political explanation, from the standpoint of mass appeal, whether or not it makes any sense otherwise.

That has been the politically preferred explanation for economic differences between the Malay majority and the more prosperous Chinese minority in Malaysia, or between the Gentile majority and the Jewish minority in various countries in Europe between the two World Wars.

At various other times and places, it has been the preferred explanation for the economic differences between the Sinhalese and the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka, the Africans and the Lebanese in Sierra Leone, the Czechs and the Germans in Bohemia and numerous other groups in countries around the world.

The idea that the rich have gotten rich by making the poor poor has been an ideological theme that has played well in Third World countries, to explain why they lag so far behind the West.

None of this was original with Jeremiah Wright. All he added was his own colorful gutter style of expressing it, which so captivated the man who is now President of the United States.

	RECEIVE LIBERTY LOVING COLUMNISTS IN YOUR INBOX … FOR FREE!
	Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

There is obviously something there with very deep emotional appeal. Moreover, because nothing is easier to find than sins among human beings, there will never be a lack of evil deeds to make that explanation seem plausible.

Because the Western culture has been ascendant in the world in recent centuries, the image of rich white people and poor non-white people has made a deep impression, whether in theories of racial superiority-- which were big among "progressives" in the early 20th century-- or in theories of exploitation among "progressives" later on.

In a wider view of history, however, it becomes clear that, for centuries before the European ascendancy, Europe lagged far behind China in many achievements. Since neither of them changed much genetically between those times and the later rise of Europe, it is hard to reconcile this role reversal with racial theories.

More important, the Chinese were not to blame for Europe's problems-- which would not be solved until the Europeans themselves finally got their own act together, instead of blaming others. If they had listened to people like Jeremiah Wright, Europe might still be in the Dark Ages.

It is hard to reconcile "exploitation" theories with the facts. While there have been conquered peoples made poorer by their conquerors, especially by Spanish conquerors in the Western Hemisphere, in general most poor countries were poor for reasons that existed before the conquerors arrived. Some Third World countries are poorer today than they were when they were ruled by Western countries, generations ago.

False theories are not just an intellectual problem to be discussed around a seminar table in some ivy-covered building. When millions of people believe those theories, including people in high places, with the fate of nations in their hands, that is a serious and potentially disastrous fact of life.

Despite a carefully choreographed image of affability and cool, Barack Obama's decisions and appointments as President betray an alienation from the values and the people of this country that are too disturbing to be answered by showing his birth certificate.

Too many of his appointees exhibit a similar alienation, including Attorney General Eric Holder, under whom the Dept. of Justice could more accurately be described as the Dept. of Payback.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

	BUY DR. SOWELL'S LATEST
	Click HERE to purchase it at a 42 % discount. (Sales help fund JWR.).

Our World: Where Obama is leading IsraelBy CAROLINE B. GLICK

Our World: Since his policy speech, president has taken a series of steps that only reinforce sense that he is most hostile US leader Jewish state has ever faced.

In the aftermath of US President Barack Obama’s May 19 speech on the Middle East, his supporters argued that the policy toward Israel and the Palestinians that Obama outlined in that speech was not anti-Israel. As they presented it, Obama’s assertion that peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians must be based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps does not mark a substantive departure from the positions adopted by his predecessors in the Oval Office.

But this claim is exposed as a lie by previous administration statements. On November 25, 2009, in response to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s acceptance of Obama’s demand for a 10-month moratorium on Jewish property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, the State Department issued the following statement: “Today’s announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”

In his speech, Obama stated: “The United States believes... the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

That is, he took “the Palestinian goal” and made it the US’s goal. It is hard to imagine a more radically anti-Israel policy shift than that.

And that wasn’t Obama’s only radically anti-Israel policy shift. Until his May 19 speech, the US agreed with Israel that the issue of borders is only one of many – including the Palestinians’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist, their demand to inundate Israel with millions of foreign Arab immigrants, their demand for control over Israel’s water supply and Jerusalem – that have to be sorted out in negotiations. The joint US-Israeli position was that until all of these issues were resolved, none of them were resolved.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, claim that before they will discuss any of these other issues, Israel has to first agree to accept the indefensible 1967 boundaries as its permanent borders. This position allows the Palestinians to essentially maintain their policy of demanding that Israel make unreciprocated concessions that then serve as the starting point for further unreciprocated concessions.

It is a position that is antithetical to peace. And on May 19, by stipulating that Israel must accept the Palestinian position on borders as a precondition for negotiations, Obama adopted it as US policy.

SINCE THAT speech, Obama has taken a series of steps that only reinforce the sense that he is the most hostile US president Israel has ever faced. Indeed, when taken together, these steps raise concern that Obama may actually constitute a grave threat to Israel.

Friday’s Yediot Aharonot reported on the dimensions of the threat Obama may pose to the Jewish state. The paper’s account was based on administration and Congressional sources. The story discussed Obama’s plans to contend with the Palestinian plan to pass a resolution at the UN General Assembly in September endorsing Palestinian statehood in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

According to Yediot, during his meeting with Obama on May 20, Netanyahu argued that in light of the Palestinians’ automatic majority support at the General Assembly, there was no way to avoid the resolution.

Netanyahu reportedly explained that the move would not be a disaster. The General Assembly overwhelmingly endorsed the PLO’s declaration of independence in 1988.

And the sky still hasn’t fallen.

Obama reportedly was unconvinced. For him, it is unacceptable to be in a position of standing alone with Israel voting against the Palestinian resolution. Obama’s distaste for standing with Israel was demonstrated in February when a visibly frustrated US Ambassador Susan Rice was forced by Congressional pressure to veto the Palestinians’ Security Council draft resolution condemning Israel for refusing to prohibit Jews from building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

Yediot’s report asserts that Obama refused to brief Netanyahu on the steps his administration is taking to avert such an unpalatable option. What the paper did report was how George Mitchell – Obama’s Middle East envoy until his resignation last week – recommended Obama proceed on this issue.

According to Yediot, Mitchell recommended that Obama work with the Europeans to draft a series of anti-Israel resolutions for the UN Security Council to pass. Among other things, these resolutions, which Mitchell said would be “painful for Israel,” would include an assertion that Jewish building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria is illegal.

That is, Mitchell recommended that Obama adopt as US policy at the Security Council past Palestinian demands that Congress forced Obama to reject just months ago at the Security Council. The notion is that by doing so, Obama could convince the Palestinians to water down the even more radically anti-Israel positions they are advancing today at the UN General Assembly that Congressional pressure prevents him from supporting.

Since General Assembly resolutions have no legal weight and Security Council resolutions do carry weight, Mitchell’s policy represents the most anti-Israel policy ever raised by a senior US official. Unfortunately Obama’s actions since last week suggest that he has adopted the gist of Mitchell’s policy recommendations.

First there was his speech before AIPAC. Among other things, Obama used the international campaign to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist as a justification for his policies of demanding that Israel capitulate to the Palestinians’ demands, which he has now officially adopted as US policy.

As he put it, “there is a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process – or the absence of one. Not just in the Arab world, but in Latin America, in Europe, and in Asia. That impatience is growing, and is already manifesting itself in capitals around the world.”

From AIPAC, Obama moved on to Europe. There he joined forces with European governments in an attempt to gang up on Israel at the G8 meeting.

Obama sought to turn his embrace of the Palestinian negotiating position into the consensus position of the G8. His move was scuttled by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who refused to accept any resolution that made mention of borders without mentioning the Palestinian demand to destroy Israel through Arab immigration, Israel’s right to defensible borders, or the Palestinians’ refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist.

If Harper had not stood by Israel, the G8’s anti-Israel resolution endorsing the Palestinian negotiating position could have formed the basis of a US-sponsored anti-Israel Security Council resolution.

Israelis planning their summer trips should put Canada at the top of their lists.

THE FINAL step Obama has taken to solidify the impression that he does not have Israel’s best interests at heart, is actually something he has not done. Over the past week, Fatah leaders of the US-backed Palestinian Authority have made a series of statements that put paid any thought that they are interested in peace with Israel or differ substantively from their partners in Hamas.

At the Arab League meeting in Qatar on Saturday, PA President Mahmoud Abbas said the Palestinian state “will be free of all Jews.”

Last week the US-supported Abbas denied the Jewish connection to the land of Israel and claimed absurdly that the Palestinians were 9,000 years old.

Equally incriminating, in an interview last week with Aaron Lerner from the IMRA newsgathering website, Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath said that now that Hamas was the co-leader of the PA with Fatah, responsibility for continuing to hold IDF St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit hostage devolved from Hamas to the PA. And the PA would continue to hold him hostage.

Shaath’s statement makes clear that rather than moderating Hamas, the Fatah-Hamas unity deal is transforming Fatah into Hamas.

And yet, Obama has had nothing to say about any of this.

Obama’s now undeniable antipathy for Israel and his apparent willingness to use his power as American president to harm Israel at the UN and elsewhere guarantee that for the duration of his tenure in office, Israel will face unprecedented threats to its security. This disturbing reality ought to focus the attention of all Israelis and of the American Jewish community. With the leader of the free world now openly siding with forces bent on Israel’s destruction, the need for unity has become acute.

MADDENINGLY, HOWEVER, at this time of unprecedented danger we see the Israeli media have joined ranks with Kadima in siding with Obama against Israel in a joint bid to bring down Netanyahu’s government. Yediot Aharonot, Maariv, Haaretz, Channel 2, Channel 10, Army Radio and Israel Radio’s coverage of Netanyahu’s visit and its aftermath was dominated by condemnations of the prime minister, and praise for Obama and opposition leader Tzipi Livni, who called for Netanyahu to resign.

The fact that polling data showed that only 12 percent of Jewish Israelis regard Obama as pro-Israeli and that the overwhelming majority of the public with an opinion believes Netanyahu’s visit was a success made absolutely no impression on the media. The wall-to-wall condemnations of Netanyahu by the Israeli media lend the impression that Israel’s leading reporters and commentators are committed to demoralizing the public into believing that Israel has no option other than surrender.

Then there is the American Jewish leadership. And at this critical time in US-Israel relations, the American Jewish leadership is either silent or siding with Obama. Right after Obama’s shocking speech on May 19, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement endorsing it. Stand With Us congratulated Obama for his AIPAC speech.

With the notable exceptions of the Zionist Organization of America and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle Eastern Reporting in America (CAMERA), leaders of American Jewish organizations have refused to condemn Obama’s anti-Israel positions.

Their silence becomes all the more enraging when placed against the massive support Israel receives from rank-and-file American Jews. In a survey of American Jews taken by CAMERA on May 16-17, between 75% and 95% of American Jews supported Israel’s position on defensible borders, Jerusalem, Palestinian “refugees,” Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist and the right of Jews to live in a Palestinian state.

The refusal of most American Jewish leaders, the Israeli media and Kadima to condemn Obama today makes you wonder if there is anything the US president could do to convince them to break ranks and stand with Israel and with the vast majority of their fellow Jews. But it is more than a source of wonder. It is a reason to be frightened. Because Obama’s actions over the past two weeks make clear to anyone willing to see that in the age of Obama, silence is dangerous.

caroline@carolineglick.com

Israel faces growing range of threats, from 'knife to nuclear'

IDF chief Gantz says Israel's defense establishment needs a higher budget to contend with the changes in the Middle East and spectrum of threats from a single terror attack to Iran's atomic developments.

The Israel Defense Forces will ask the state to increase its defense budget significantly to contend with the growing terror threats in the region, Chief of Staff Benny Gantz said on Tuesday.

"The spectrum of threats in light of the changes in the Middle East is growing," Gantz told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. "These threats range from knife to nuclear – from the knife used in a single terror attack to a nuclear Iran."

"The threats of the past are still in force, but new threats are developing that require the ability to operate in a number of different theaters with strength and determination," Gantz said, adding that this "new spectrum of threats requires a new and broader budget framework for the defense establishment."

One such threat was the upcoming aid flotilla bound from Turkey to the Gaza Strip, one year after the deadly Israeli raid on the Mavi Marmara ship. "The flotilla organizers are working to inflame hatred and provocation against Israel and not out of desire to help the population in Gaza."

"There is no humanitarian crisis" in Gaza, Gantz declared. "Every day, hundreds of trucks enter filled with food and materials. The IDF will work to stop any attempt to break through the naval blockade."

The international community has recognized the validity of this blockade, said Gantz, adding that even United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon recently defended its legality while blasting the illegality of the aid flotillas.

Hamas-Gaza's missile stock passes 10,000 - and going up

According to updates reaching debkafile's military sources, the number of missiles Hamas has managed to stockpile in Gaza passed the 10,000 mark in early May – despite Israel's partial blockade of the Gaza Strip. It is growing at the rate of some 30 new projectiles of many types smuggled in every two weeks. On April 9, the Palestinian fundamentalists shot 133 rockets at seven Israeli cities before Israel granted a ceasefire in lieu of an operation for smashing this arsenal.
Firing at the rate of 150 missiles a day, Hamas is currently capable of keeping southern Israel under constant attack for 66 days running.
When Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Security Committee May 30 about the Palestinian Hamas's expanding control of Egyptian Sinai, he omitted to mention the arms smuggling tunnels which openly flout Israel's blockade. The interaction between the Gaza Strip and Sinai and the effect it has of undermining Egypt's sovereign control of the strategic peninsula, which he also mentioned, is an old story going back years.

What has changed since Hosni Mubarak's ouster in February is that the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot Hamas have both gained traction in Egypt proper.

But Israel and its military continue to hold back from stemming the arms flow, now including anti-tank and anti-air missiles, into the Gaza Strip, just as they never interfered with Hizballah's acquisition of thousands of advanced rockets from Iran and Syria.
Before the current ceasefire, Hamas demonstrated in a single day, Saturday, April 9, that its improved missiles could hit the fringes of Kiryat Gat 21 kilometers from Gaza and Rishon Lezion, double that distance.
The country, all parts of which are covered by the two Hamas-Hizballah missile arsenals, was not informed by the prime minister, Defense Minister Ehud Barak or Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz about the deal which induced Hamas to hold its fire for now.

While Hamas was presented simply as scared off by the threat of a major IDF operation, debkafile's intelligence sources disclose that it was the consequence of a quiet deal offered Jerusalem by Egypt's military rulers at a time that scores of rockets were raining down.
Those rulers asked the Netanyahu government if they could assure Hamas there would be no big Israeli operation as a means of persuading them to accept a ceasefire: A four-point plan for the Gaza Strip's immediate future was attached to the Egyptian proposition:

1. Egypt would broker a reconciliation pact between the warring Palestinian factions, Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah and the extremist Hamas. And indeed this pact was signed a month later on May 4;

2. Egypt would gradually relieve Israel of responsibility for keeping the enclave supplied with fuel, foodstuffs, medicines and other essentials. This contradicts the official claim that the opening of the Rafah crossing from Gaza to Sinai Saturday, May 28, is to be restricted to persons not goods.

3. Egypt will maintain a large intelligence center inside the Strip. This means Cairo is going back to controlling security in and for the Gaza Strip, a function which lapsed under Hosni Mubarak. Hamas will therefore profit twice: once from an Egyptian-guaranteed Israeli pledge to refrain from attacking the Gaza Strip plus an Egyptian military shield for the territory.
4. Cairo will tell Hamas that its handling of intra-Palestinian affairs is contingent on two Hamas commitments: a total stoppage of missile fire on Israel and the restart of negotiations for the release of Gilead Shalit, the Israeli soldier it has held captive for five years.
The Netanyahu government was assured that the ceasefire would go into effect the instant this deal was accepted. The prime minister decided to accept the Egyptian package, thereby initiating a period of calm for the eight-day Passover festival and his four-day trip to Washington – even though Hamas had never directly undertaken any commitment toward Israel and Cairo alone was party to the truce.
The upshot of this deal is that, after firing an anti-tank missile April 7 at an Israeli school bus – and so causing the death of a 16-year old Israeli boy - and terrorizing a million civilians in their homes week after week, Hamas comes out clean as a whistle and safe from Israeli retribution. It can also keep on smuggling arms to the Gaza Strip through its Sinai tunnels because the military rulers in Cairo avoided any commitment to combat this illegal flow.
All in all, Hamas' prospects in Egypt are bright. The Muslim Brotherhood has every chance of rising to power in the parliamentary and presidential elections taking place in three months. Israel has no guarantee that the new rulers will honor the April 2011 commitments offered Israel by the provisional military rulers.

The only fly in Hamas's ointment is internal: Its unity accord with Fatah is stalled for now by a huge row between Hamas-Gaza and Hamas-Damascus over who gives the orders. This dispute is also a function of the Gaza faction's growing assertiveness under Cairo's protection and the Muslim Brotherhood's wing.
And if letting Hamas off the hook were not enough, Brinks vans continue to carry roughly $13 million in cash from Israel into the Gaza Strip every month to avoid censure for starving the Gazan economy of cash, even though the money besides lining the pockets of its rulers finances the smuggling tunnels through which arms reach the enclave and which also provide them with a second source of profit.
Hamas is not just gaining momentum in Egypt but most of all in the Gaza Strip itself.

Palestinians prepare for ‘Naksa’ marches on Israel’s border

Following the example of this month’s Nakba Day marches, Palestinians and their supporters are preparing to launch another multipronged assault on Israel’s borders this week to mark the “Naksa,” or setback, of Arab defeat and territorial losses in the 1967 Six Day War.

The website “Third Palestinian Intifada” and its Facebook page, “Countdown to the Third Palestinian Intifada,” have posted detailed plans for marches on Israel’s borders with Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Gaza, as well as processions to Jerusalem’s Al- Aksa Mosque, on three separate dates before and during the war’s anniversary.
The group’s “plan of action” calls for mass rallies on June 3, 5 and 7 – the Friday leading up to the Six Day War anniversary, the date on which the war began and the date Israeli troops took Jerusalem, respectively.

Thirteen people were killed on May 15, Nakba Day, while trying to breach Israel’s borders with Syria and Lebanon.

Many of the protesters killed had been shot by the Lebanese Army as the group approached the border with Israel.

Similar rallies were held on Israel’s borders with Jordan and Gaza, and in the West Bank. In the day’s most dramatic incident, three people were killed by IDF fire when around 100 Syrians broke through the Golan Heights border fence at Majdal Shams. Another 10 were killed by Lebanese troops on the Israel-Lebanon border.

This time, military officials said the IDF will deploy larger forces along Israel’s northern borders to avoid a repeat of the Nakba Day disturbances.

The officials said they expect the rallies to be relatively peaceful, and that they hope an effective troop deployment can prevent border infiltrations altogether.

“The goal is twofold,” one defense official said. “To prevent infiltrations, and at the same time, to try to ensure there are no casualties on either side.”

The May 15 border rallies were coordinated largely through social media sites, and organizers predict an even greater turnout this time around.

“We will renew the memory of the Naksa, and we will make it a setback to the occupying entity,” organizers wrote on Facebook. “Thus we declare with all our strength and with our loudest voice that the seventh of June, which marks the rape of Jerusalem… is a day of allegiance to Jerusalem in all countries of the world.”

In March, Facebook closed a page calling for a third intifada against Israel after Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein complained it was inciting violence.

The current Facebook page, under a slightly different name, was created in early April, and by mid-May had been followed, or “liked,” by 100,000 people. Over the last two weeks the page’s following has grown to over 375,000.

Organizers wrote that the Nakba Day events prove historic Palestine can be “liberated” by mass unarmed marches, provided the “umma,” or Islamic nation, is willing to pay any price, including a million martyrs.

“Our intifada continues, Israel is about to depart, and with God’s help we will all pray in the mosques and churches of Jerusalem,” they wrote.

Similar notices have been posted on other pro-Palestinian websites.

“On Sunday, June 5, the 44th commemoration of the Naksa, or setback – Israel’s 1967 expulsion of 300,000 Palestinians following the Six Day War – Palestinian refugees will return en masse to the borders,” said an article on the International Solidarity Movement homepage.

Meanwhile, the administrators of a popular Facebook page dedicated to the Prophet Muhammad have changed the profile picture to an announcement that the “Continuing Palestinian Intifada” will begin on June 7. The page, “Rassoul Allah,” is one of the most popular of thousands dedicated to the Muslim prophet, with 3.7 million “likes.”

Ofir Gendelman, the Prime Minister’s Office spokesman for Arabic media, said Israel is ready to use “any means necessary” to protect its borders.

“Activity on Facebook calling for people to march on the borders has grown in recent weeks, and there are pages telling people exactly where to go,” he said. “Of course we’re familiar with this activity both on Facebook and Twitter, and have been for some time. We’re prepared for any eventuality, whether by use of the police, army, security forces, Foreign Ministry and of course the Prime Minister’s Office, to provide a security response to attempts to enter into our territory.

“These people want 300 or 400 casualties in order to create a media and geopolitical tsunami to distract the world’s attention from what’s happening in Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority, and to direct it at Israel,” he said.

“We must remember that not all those who click ‘like’ on Facebook are going to board a bus and ride to the border. There’s a difference between clicking ‘like’ and taking the personal risk of trying to breach the border,” he said.

“I’m certain the other side will get the message – that we won’t let anyone in, whatever the price. They won’t get in.

The borders under our sovereignty will be maintained, whatever the price.”

According to Third Palestinian Intifada’s “plan of action,” following prayers on Friday, Arabs in Israel, the West Bank and Jerusalem will march on the Al- Aksa Mosque to declare their “allegiance” to the holy city. Egyptians are instructed to gather in Tahrir Square to do the same, as are residents of “the rest of the Arab, Islamic and Western capitals.” Gazans and Jordanians are encouraged to march on their respective borders with Israel.

Two days later, Arab residents of Israel, the West Bank and Jerusalem are again instructed to march on Al-Aksa Mosque, and to “clash with Israeli soldiers in contact areas,” while in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, protesters are to march “peacefully” to their respective border with Israel.

In the capitals of Arab, Islamic and Western countries, rallies are planned outside “Zionist embassies,” including Israel’s diplomatic missions in Egypt.

On June 7, “millions of Arabs, Muslims, Christians and liberals of the world, led by university students in different places will swear allegiance to Jerusalem on the day Jerusalem fell and the mosques and churches fell to the hands of the Zionists.”

Organizers are calling again for marches on Al-Aksa Mosque, and for a “construction convoy” from Egypt to Gaza to bring building materials to the Strip.

“The process of empowerment and liberation, which started in Tunisia and Egypt, should end with the liberation of Jerusalem and Palestine,” organizers wrote. “Palestine will be liberated from the river to the sea, and the sea to the river.”

Eyal Zisser, a senior research fellow at Tel Aviv University’s Dayan Center, said the association between “Nakba” and “Naksa” is problematic from Israel’s perspective in that it identifies the defeat of 1967 with calls for the return of refugees from the War of Independence.

“If we convince ourselves that our problem with the Arab world is not that they are unwilling to accept our existence, but that it’s over the West Bank and Gaza, then why are the Palestinians linking the return of refugees with the ’67 borders?” he said.

Melanie Lidman and Yaakov Katz contributed to this report.

Obama's Anti-Israel Islamic Pals

Khalidi is just one of many.

The controversy surrounding Senator Barack Obama's friendship with Rashid Khalidi, and the tape being suppressed by the Los Angeles Times, is overshadowing the important fact that Khalidi is just one of many Israel-hating Islamic characters that Obama has allied himself with.

For example, these people are connected directly to his Senate office or campaign:

• Cynthia K. Miller, treasurer of his Senate campaign, is a member of a member Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.

• Jennifer Mason, Obama's Director of Constituent Services, is also a member of the Nation of Islam.

• Other Nation of Islam members, including consultant Shakir Muhammad, held important roles in the Obama state Senate campaign.

And they had their influence. When Obama first ran for the US Senate, he gave militant responses to the Chicago Jewish News about Israel. Obama denounced Israel's fence, which he called a "wall" and "barrier to peace." He favored working with Yasser Arafat. When members of the Chicago Jewish community circulated his responses, Obama said that the answers were not his positions, but the work of a low-level intern. He submitted new answers. But that was a lie, an insider says. In fact, they were the work of Obama's Policy Director, Audra Wilson. Moreover, Obama told the insider that he blamed the Mideast conflict on the Jews: "Barack told me that he felt that the Jewish community was too inflexible, and that was why the situation in the Mideast could not be resolved." (Source: Debbie Schlussel)

There are also some "bigger fish" in Obama's Crew of Anti-Israel Friends:

• The Khalid al-Mansour connection: According to former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton, Mansour "was raising money for" Obama's expenses at Harvard Law School. Mansour, a Black American (né Don Warden), became adviser to Saudi prince Al-Walid Bin-Talal, CAIR's largest individual donor. Mansour holds standard Islamist views: he absolves the Islamist government in Sudan of sponsoring slavery; he denies a Jewish tie to Jerusalem; and he wrote a booklet titled "Americans Beware! The Zionist Plot Against S. Arabia." (Both Obama and Mansour deny Sutton's account.)

• The Kenny Gamble (also known as Luqman Abdul-Haqq) connection: Gamble, a once-prominent pop music producer, cut the ribbon to the Obama campaign headquarters housed in a South Philadelphia building he owns. Gamble is an Islamist who buys large swaths of real estate to create Muslim-only residential areas. Also, as the self-styled "emir" of the United Muslim Movement, he has many links to Islamist organizations, including CAIR and the Muslim Alliance in North America. (MANA's "emir" is Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.)

• The Mazen Asbahi connection: The Obama campaign's first Muslim outreach coordinator resigned after it came to light that he had served on the board of a subsidiary of the Saudi-sponsored North American Islamic Trust with Jamal Said, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Hamas funding trial. Asbahi has ties to CAIR's Chicago and Detroit offices, to the Islamic Society of North America, yet another unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas funding trial, and to other Islamist organizations.

• The Minha Husaini connection: The campaign's second Muslim outreach coordinator has an Islamist background, having served as an intern in the Muslim Public Service Network. Immediately upon her appointment by Obama, she met with a group of about 30 Muslims, including such notorious figures as CAIR's Nihad Awad, the Muslim American Society's Mahdi Bray, who has publicly supported Hamas and Hizbullah, and Johari Abdul Malik of the Dar al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, who has advised American Muslims: "You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work." (Source: Daniel Pipes)
  One prominent Palestinian-American will tell you that Obama is hiding his true feelings toward the Jewish State.
  

So, how can Senator Obama be pro-Israel and have so many anti-Israel buddies? Well, one prominent Palestinian-American will tell you that Obama is hiding his true feelings toward the Jewish State.

Ali Abunimah is a pro-Arab journalist and founder of the Electronic Intifada website. He will tell you that Senator Obama is full of crap when he says that he is pro-Israel: "If disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans, Obama's about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected."

Abunimah says that Obama has long been a friend of the Palestinian community, but he knows where the money is. He has changed his position because those in the pro-Israel camp (American Jews?) have the money to get him elected.

So, folks, you see you really don't need the LA Times video to figure out what Senator Obama said at that dinner. It was probably something horribly anti-Israel, like, "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" or that there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis." Either way, it is clear that those who love the Jewish State should not be voting for him next Tuesday.

Cheshvan 2, 5769 / 31 October 08

France calls for 'agreed upon' solution to ME conflict

Comment is significant in light of Israeli efforts to convince the Europeans that supporting Palestinian statehood at the UN in September would be counterproductive; French FM to meet Netanyahu, Abbas.

An agreed upon solution between Israel and the Palestinians is the only one that will put an end to the current status quo, the French embassy said in a statement released Monday announcing the visit to the region of French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe.

That comment is significant in light of Israeli efforts to convince the Europeans that supporting Palestinian statehood at the UN in September would be counterproductive.
This issue is expected to be a main focus of Juppe's talks here -- his first as foreign minister -- with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Defense Minster Ehud Barak.

Juppe will arrive Wednesday evening from Rome, where he is scheduled to meet with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, and during his two-day stay here is also scheduled to meet in Ramallah with PA Prime Minster Salam Fayyad.

Unlike Germany and Italy, which have said they would not support a PA move to the UN in September, France and Britain have signaled they may support this bid.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in an interview earlier this month with the weekly magazine L'Express that “If the peace process is still dead in September, France will face up to its responsibilities on the central question of recognition of a Palestinian state."

Sarkozy said that “the idea that there is still plenty of time is dangerous, we must finish."

According to the embassy statement, Juppe will stress to his interlocutors "the urgency of creating a constructive dialogue between the two sides to reach an agreed upon solution, the only one that has the ability to put an end to the current status quo.

"Peace has tarried for too long, at a time when the parameters are known to everyone," the statement read.

With it becoming increasingly likely that the US will veto any Palestinian statehood resolution at the UN Security Council, the only real question is whether the world's democracies – and not only the Islamic and developing countries that make up the Palestinian's "automatic" majority in the UN – will support a statehood resolution in the UN General Assembly and thereby give the move a degree of "moral legitimacy."

Recognizing the importance of the European voice in this matter, both Israel and the Palestinians are busy lobbying the various European governments. Israeli officials have said that it is likely the EU will not vote as a block on this matter, and – as was the case when the General Assembly voted on the Goldstone Commission report in 2009 – some will vote with Israel, some will vote against, and others will abstain.

Perhaps an indication of how the votes will fall in the General Assembly in September, in the Goldstone report vote the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia were the EU countries that voted for Israel

The EU states voting against Israel were Cyprus, Ireland, Malta, Portugal and Slovenia. And those abstaining were Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

Hospitals hunt substitutes as drug shortages rise

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A growing shortage of medications for a host of illnesses - from cancer to cystic fibrosis to cardiac arrest - has hospitals scrambling for substitutes to avoid patient harm, and sometimes even delaying treatment.

"It's just a matter of time now before we call for a drug that we need to save a patient's life and we find out there isn't any," says Dr. Eric Lavonas of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The problem of scarce supplies or even completely unavailable medications isn't a new one but it's getting markedly worse. The number listed in short supply has tripled over the past five years, to a record 211 medications last year. While some of those have been resolved, another 89 drug shortages have occurred in the first three months of this year, according to the University of Utah's Drug Information Service. It tracks shortages for the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

The vast majority involve injectable medications used mostly by medical centers - in emergency rooms, ICUs and cancer wards. Particular shortages can last for weeks or for many months, and there aren't always good alternatives. Nor is it just a U.S. problem, as other countries report some of the same supply disruptions.

It's frightening for families.

At Miami Children's Hospital, doctors had to postpone for a month the last round of chemotherapy for 14-year-old Caroline Pallidine, because of a months-long nationwide shortage of cytarabine, a drug considered key to curing a type of leukemia.

"There's always a fear, if she's going so long without chemo, is there a chance this cancer's going to come back?" says her mother, Marta Pallidine, who says she'll be nervous until Caroline finishes her final treatments scheduled for this week.

"In this day and age, we really shouldn't be having this kind of problem and putting our children's lives at risk," she adds.

There are lots of causes, from recalls of contaminated vials, to trouble importing raw ingredients, to spikes in demand, to factories that temporarily shut down for quality upgrades.

Some experts pointedly note that pricier brand-name drugs seldom are in short supply. The Food and Drug Administration agrees that the overarching problem is that fewer and fewer manufacturers produce these older, cheaper generic drugs, especially the harder-to-make injectable ones. So if one company has trouble - or decides to quit making a particular drug - there are few others able to ramp up their own production to fill the gap, says Valerie Jensen, who heads FDA's shortage office.

The shortage that's made the most headlines is a sedative used on death row. But on the health-care front, shortages are wide-ranging, including:

-Thiotepa, used with bone marrow transplants.

-A whole list of electrolytes, injectable nutrients crucial for certain premature infants and tube-feeding of the critically ill.

-Norepinephrine injections for septic shock.

-A cystic fibrosis drug named acetylcysteine.

-Injections used in the ER for certain types of cardiac arrest.

-Certain versions of pills for ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

-Some leuprolide hormone injections used in fertility treatment.

No one is tracking patient harm. But last fall, the nonprofit Institute for Safe Medication Practices said it had two reports of people who died from the wrong dose of a substitute painkiller during a morphine shortage.

"Every pharmacist in every hospital across the country is working to make sure those things don't happen, but shortages create the perfect storm for a medication error to happen," says University of Utah pharmacist Erin Fox, who oversees the shortage-tracking program.

What can be done?

The FDA has taken an unusual step, asking some foreign companies to temporarily ship to the U.S. their own versions of some scarce drugs that aren't normally sold here. That eased shortages of propofol, a key anesthesia drug, and the transplant drug thiotepa.

Affected companies say they're working hard to eliminate backlogs. For instance, Hospira Inc., the largest maker of those injectable drugs, says it is increasing production capacity and working with FDA "to address shortage situations as quickly as possible and to help prevent recurrence."

But the Generic Pharmaceutical Association says some shortages are beyond industry control, such as FDA inspections or stockpiling that can exacerbate a shortage.

"Drug shortages of any kind are a complex problem that require broad-based solutions from all stakeholders," adds the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a fellow trade group.

Lawmakers are getting involved. Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., is urging the Federal Trade Commission to consider if any pending drug-company mergers would create or exacerbate shortages.

Also, pending legislation would require manufacturers to give FDA advance notice of problems such as manufacturing delays that might trigger a shortage. The FDA cannot force a company to make a drug, but was able to prevent 38 close calls from turning into shortages last year by speeding approval of manufacturing changes or urging competing companies to get ready to meet a shortfall.

"No patient's life should have to be at risk when there is a drug somewhere" that could be used, says Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who introduced the bill.

---

EDITOR'S NOTE - Lauran Neergaard covers health and medical issues for The Associated Press in Washington.

IDF preparing for more violence on Lebanon border'

Official tells AP more demonstrations expected on northern border ahead of Six Day War anniversary; will allow protests, but "red lines" set.

The IDF is preparing for additional protests along the Lebanese border ahead of the Six Day War anniversary next week, a senior military official told the Associated Press.

Earlier this month, on the day that Palestinians commemorate Nakba Day, a dozen people were killed in demonstrations along the Lebanese and Syrian borders by both IDF and Lebanese troops attempting to disperse the demonstrations and prevent border breaches.



According to the Monday report, the IDF is aiming to avoid civilian casualties but has set several "red lines," meaning it would not allow any breaches of the border or allow Palestinians to enter West Bank settlements.

Troops, he added, would refrain from reacting to non-violent demonstrations, including those near settlements, but that it would act in life threatening situations, the Associated Press reported.

In addition, IDF soldiers deployed on the borders will be better equipped to deal with protesters, the official told AP. Crowd dispersal tools will be deployed in the units, including rubber bullets and water cannons, according to the report.

The IDF spokesperson did not have a comment at the time of this report.

On Sunday, Israel Police Insp.-Gen. Yochanan Danino said that police are preparing for the possibility of large scale riots in September following an expected declaration of statehood by Palestinians.

“The Israel Police is currently preparing for September, and for the possibility that various declarations regarding a nonviolent-civil struggle against the background of a declaration of a Palestinian state will end up becoming a violent conflict, and turn into wide-scale rioting,” Danino said.

The police commissioner added that his forces faced a “new reality” due to areas of friction between populations, attempts to infiltrate the borders, and “calls on Internet sites and Facebook to violate Israel’s sovereignty, as well as the the situation that the whole of the Middle East is experiencing during these days.”

Yaakov Lappin contributed to this report.

Global terror organizations strengthening in Sinai

Netanyahu expresses concern over Egypt's ability to control Sinai after regime change; warns Hamas, terror groups shifting operations to Egypt; denies approving Ofer brothers Iran deal.

The presence of terrorist organizations is increasing in Sinai because of Egypt's difficulty in exercising its sovereignty over the area, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Monday at a Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting.

Netanyahu noted that Hamas is getting stronger in Egypt and has moved to run its operations from Syria to Egypt following anti-Assad uprisings there.
"Egypt has had difficulties exercising its sovereignty over Sinai. We saw this in the two gas pipe explosions that occurred there," Netanyahu said. "What's happening in Sinai is that global terrorist organizations are meddling there and their presence is increasing because of the connection between Sinai and Gaza."

Netanyahu's comments came after Al-Hayyat satellite television station on Monday reported that over 400 al-Qaida members have made their way into the Sinai Peninsula, according to a senior Egyptian security official.

The security sources said the terrorists carried out "a number of attacks against [Egyptian] security forces in the Sinai city of El Arish," the official told Al-Hayyat.

During the FADC meeting, Netanyahu warned that, "The Muslim Brotherhood is also not insignificant in Egypt.

"We are concerned about what happens around us, especially in Egypt and Jordan," he said.

The prime minister stressed that the situation should be shared with the public in light of the changing reality in the region.

"This was true before I left the US and even more so after what I said there," he stated, adding that his objective in the US was to try to unite all the parties over the importance of "recognizing Israel as the Jewish state" and that there should be an "Israeli military presence along the Jordan [River], that the refugee problem will not be solved in Jordan, and that Hamas is not committed to the principles of the Quartet."

Commenting on his meeting with Obama, Netanyahu said "The conversation with the president was respectable. I told the president that we cannot accept the 1967 lines."

"The final version of Obama's comments was received on the day just before his speech [to AIPAC] where he said the borders will not be the same 1967 lines," Netanyahu said. "There is very strong support for Israel coming from the American people."

On the changes taking place in the Arab world, Netanyahu said, "There is a huge jolt in the Arab world and it should be handled in a sober and responsible way.

Netanyahu also commented on peace proposals by the Arabs saying, "Not all Arab claims are a [peace] plan and not every instance in which we reject their principles means that we do not want to advance the peace process."

"It is first necessary to unite around our own plan," Netanyahu said.

Thanks Canada, but Netanyahu needs Obama

Though Netanyahu convinced the Canadian Prime Minister to support his stand, Obama didn't change his position and neither did the leaders of the European Union.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is proud of his diplomatic achievement over the weekend: He managed to influence the concluding statement of the G8 summit in France. Netanyahu lobbied Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and convinced him to oppose a reference to the formula proposed by U.S. President Barack Obama in which the border between Israel and a Palestinian state would be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed corrections.

Harper agreed with Netanyahu that there is no reason to stress the border issue and not other aspects of the Obama plan, including recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. The G8 makes it statements by consensus, and the Canadian leader's opposition was enough for the U.S. and European leaders to change the wording.

It's nice that Netanyahu found a leader of an important Western country ready to support his pronouncements, after other leaders turned him down. But Netanyahu's lobbying only brought Israel the illusion of success. Obama didn't change his position and neither did the leaders of the European Union. Even after supposedly yielding to Netanyahu's demand, they still believe that Israel should retreat from the West Bank, evacuate the settlements and allow the Palestinians to set up an independent state, with its capital in East Jerusalem.

Instead of engaging in verbal gymnastics and fiery speeches, Netanyahu should work to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians and partition the land, as he promised once again in Congress last week. The unnecessary censuring of the international community's position distracts us from the heart of the matter: changing the situation on the ground to end the occupation and provide Israel with a permanent border with an independent Palestine.

Netanyahu finds it easier and more pleasant to hold talks with Western leaders in diplomatic parlors, to indulge forever in public relations and smear the Palestinian leadership than to make vital decisions on Israel's future. Netanyahu forgot, probably, that Israel doesn't need peace with the G8, but with its Palestinian neighbors, and that it must reach out to them instead of digging in behind the claim that there is no partner.

only haaretz, the left wing israeli paper, cannot stop themselves from at least one paragraph criticizing netanyahu. it would ruin their day if they gave netanyahu any credit