Zealous Musk and Jealous Beijing -- Sharing Space In Space?

 

The image of Musk and his Chinese doppelganger was posted beneath a tweet from Musk claiming that he will pay 11 billion USD in taxes this year.

Elon Musk enjoys great popularity among young Chinese, in China. He has also invested a great deal in China. Unfortunately, the great admiration he enjoys as a role model for innovative, bold gestures and a startling imagination with an enduring belief that there is nothing, absolutely nothing that he cannot achieve on the strength of the force of his character, his vision and enterprise, is not universally beloved in China. Oh, the Chinese Communist Party respects his enterprise and ability to make money for himself and his enterprises, but they have certain reservations about anyone -- just ask Jack Ma -- who thinks too big for their britches.

And no one individual can possibly challenge the supremacy of the Chinese State and its enterprises. Including Beijing's claim to shooting for the stars. Starting modestly with a space station of its own. So when a world-class entrepreneur like Elon Musk displays a gusto for outmaneuvering and out-satelliting the most technically advanced, ardent of nations in space exploration he was guaranteed to raise the hackles of the CCP. All the more so that he is a certified American strategist-capitalist-innovator.

Not that this far-reaching technical-whizz-kid hasn't raised the hackles of other non-state groups, such as scientists in the field of astronomy and astro-physics who depend on their ability to read the stars, as it were, though the grace of dark skies enabling powerful telescopes to reach far into the deepest recesses of the universe, back in time and space to analyze the beginning of all that exists, but will be hampered by Musk's plans to string satellites in a wide net impeding the course of astronomical investigation by lighting up the skies.

Now, however, Beijing accuses Elon Musk of "space warfare" in close encounters of a different kind, where some satellites launched as part of his groundbreaking global internet initiative experienced a near-miss with China's recently-launched space station. Starlink Internet Services, a division of the Musk Space-X aerospace company, saw some of its satellites involved in two "close encounters" with China's space station in July and October.

China subsequently submitted a document to the United Nations apace agency: "For safety reasons, the China Space Station implemented preventive collision avoidance control", China reported on the website of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. Now that's awfully serious; it's obvious that a collision of any dimension has the potential to end badly. Remember not so long ago when China insisted it had the right to send up rockets directed to destroy some of its old space junk still in circulation?

And the United States and European Space Agency were concerned over the detritus not only having the potential to intersect with their communication satellites but their space missions as well, including the international space station, where astronauts were actually forced to take evasive action when a piece of a destroyed Chinese weather satellite was headed toward it?

 

The ISS is a big target for space debris, but it's no sitting duck   NASA

.China launched Tianhe, the largest of its three modules which will make up its space station, in April. The end of 2022 will see the completion of the space station following four crewed missions meant to build on the initial module. Scientists urge space-travelling governments to share data to reduce risk of catastrophic space collisions in view of close to 30,000 satellites and other debris orbiting Earth. Close to 1,900 satellites have been deployed by Space X alone in service to its Starlink broadband network, meant to blanket the world with universal internet coverage.

According to China's state-operated tabloid Global Times, the satellites, 42,000 thousand of which Musk plans to orbit could be "used to detect China's space perception capabilities and test whether China can accurately grasp their actions". The paper wrote: "The aerospace industry is currently concerned about the military application of Starlink satellite because after the deployment of more than 40,000 satellites, the normal launch of other countries will be affected."

Musk may just run into problems making his world-wide high-speed internet connectivity viable; planning to ask China for permission to build antenna dishes or ground links on its territory to send and receive data from the Starlink spacecraft initially, China saw that plan as interfering with its censored internet network, the "Great Firewall", blocking access to websites like google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and international media. How else might it succeed in ensuring its 1.4 billion population is shielded from criticism against its communist leaders?

The Chinese division of Tesla last month, also owned by Musk, announced that Starlink would not launch services in China. All Tesla cars and charging stations would use network services provided by Chinese operators with all data maintained within the country. This, the result of China forcing foreign companies to retain all records collected from Chinese consumers within the country. Tesla in China employs quite a lot of Chinese workers.

 

"What will happen to Tesla in China, if some day Starlink's low-orbit satellites collide with our country's low-orbit satellites or other spacecraft", worried one Chinese, writing on Weibo. What, indeed?! After all, China appears to feel entitled to viewing space as its personal jurisdiction and it is very jealous of its reputation and sovereignty. And Musk feels that nothing is beyond his enterprising spirit to accomplish as a private, non-state investor in space.

 

Clarifications Required for BBC Reports on Shati Incident

December 14, 2014

Author:

Hadar Sela

Tags:

civilian casualties Gaza Dar al Shifa Hospital Hamas Gaza Strip Israel-Gaza conflict Middle East crisis Operation Protective Edge Gaza Shati Refugee Camp

A BBC Twitter post. Photo: BBC Watch.

As we noted on our blog the other day, the Israeli Military Attorney General (MAG) has published the findings of some of the investigations conducted into incidents which occurred in the Gaza Strip during Operation Protective Edge.
One of the incidents investigated was the deaths of 10 civilians on July 28 at the Shati refugee camp, along with an alleged attack on Shifa hospital on the same afternoon. The findings are as follows:

“Various media reports alleged that on 28 July 2014, an incident occurred involving a strike on medical clinics belonging to the Al-Shifa Hospital, as well as a strike on a park where children were present in the Shati Refugee Camp, and as a result of which ten persons (including nine children) were killed and tens injured. Some of these reports alleged that the strikes were carried out by the IDF. As a result, and in accordance with the MAG’s investigation policy, it was decided to refer the incident for examination by the FFAM [Fact Finding Assessment Mission – Ed.].
Following a thorough review conducted by the FFAM, such a strike by IDF forces could not be identified. However, Israel’s technical systems recorded in real-time the path of a salvo of missiles fired from within the Gaza Strip, seemingly by Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which landed in the medical clinics and in the Shati Refugee Camp at the time of the alleged incident. Under these circumstances, and in light of the fact that the strike on the hospital was the result of rocket fire from Palestinian terrorist organizations, the MAG ordered the case to be closed.”

Material relating to those incidents which is still available to the general public on the BBC News website includes:
“Gaza conflict: Disputed deadly incidents” – originally published on July 31st 2014 and discussed here.

“Gaza’s police, Civil Defence Directorate and health officials say Israeli air strikes caused the explosions. According to Al-Jazeera, Hamas denied it had fired any rockets from the area and said it was ‘categorically an Israeli air strike.’ Hamas said it had collected shrapnel from the scene consistent with Israeli munitions, the channel’s website reported.
In a text message quoted by AP news agency, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri described the incident as a ‘war crime’ for which ‘the occupation’ would pay the price.”

“Gaza in critical condition, says UN’s Ban Ki-moon” – July 28th 2014.

“Police and health officials said separate Israeli airstrikes had hit the compound of Gaza City’s main hospital and a nearby playground on Monday afternoon, causing casualties.
But a spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces said both explosions were caused by misfired rockets that were launched from Gaza by ‘terrorists.’”

“Gaza City and Israel’s Eshkol hit by deadly blasts” – originally published on July 28th 2014.

“At least 10 people – eight of them children – were killed in Monday afternoon’s blasts in Gaza City, Palestinian health officials said.
Palestinian officials say the 10 were killed by Israeli missile strikes, but Israel says the explosions were caused by rockets misfired by ‘terrorists.’”

“Israel PM Netanyahu warns of ‘prolonged’ Gaza campaign” – July 29th 2014.

“At least 10 people – eight of them children – were killed in blasts in Gaza City on Monday afternoon, Palestinian health officials said. It is unclear if they were killed by an Israeli attack or a misfiring militant rocket.”

“Middle East crisis: Children pay heavy price in Gaza” – Ian Pannell, July 28th 2014.

“A hospital already overflowing with casualties was engulfed in chaos. Parents and relatives frantically searching for their children. The wards were full of them. Fourteen year-old Mohammed had shrapnel in his back. ‘We were playing in the street and they hit us’, he said. ‘They targeted us. Lots of children were killed.’ And next to him, four year-old Ola [phonetic]. Shrapnel cut into her small body. Israel has denied it was responsible for this.
Woman: ‘Then who fired it? I ran outside and found my daughters. If the Israelis didn’t do it, who did? Did my daughters launch the rocket?’
Marching up the hill to bury two small boys. They’d played together, they were killed together and now, they were going to be buried together. The boys’ father says his sons are martyrs who died for the resistance against Israel.”

All of the above are discussed here.
Clearly the BBC’s June 2014 announcement stating that “however long ago our online content was first published, if it’s still available, editorial complaints may legitimately be made regarding it” means that all the above reports need to have a note of clarification urgently added, informing audiences of the actual circumstances of the incident.

The House Is In Session

Canadian Government Policy Statements

"Canadians are rightly sickened by [ISIS's] savage slaughter of anyone who doesn't share their twisted view of the world. We know their ideology is not the result of 'social exclusion' or other so-called 'root causes'.
"It is evil, vile, and must be unambiguously opposed."
"Israel is the front line. And anyone among the free and democratic nations that turns their back on Israel, or turns a blind eye to the nature of Israel's enemies does so, in the long run, at their own peril."
"We will not rest until the people of Ukraine are free to choose their own destiny. Free from Russian boots on their soil, free from intimidation."
"When we took office, in this era of global markets, Canada had free trade agreements with only five other countries. The previous government had taken us virtually out of the game of trade negotiations. Now, with free-trade agreements with 43 countries, Canada will have one of the greatest trading networks in the world."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his wife, Laureen, wave after a speech to supporters on Monday in Ottawa. Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

He covered the playing field, and then some; from Canada's Conservative-led government's firm grip on the country's economy, to hurling Canada with a measure of removed restraint into the Islamic fundamentalist threat, to distaste for Russian aggression against Ukraine and for good measure the terrorist Hamas threat to Israel's continued existence. And then of course, a day after the Prime Minister addressed Conservative partisans, he sat in for the results of his speech, in the House of Commons.

Summer break over with, Members of Parliament were no doubt delighted to return to Ottawa and Parliament Hill to resume the nation's business. And it was of course, business as usual, with the opposition happy to hold the government's feet to the fire of critical claims of abuse of power. The "root causes" insert in his mention of Islamist fanaticism gave the courtesy of recognizing an especial concern of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.

The Prime Minister sees no value in having people "sit around trying to rationalize", or "figure out its root causes", when it comes to the Medieval brutality meted out by Islamist jihadists. "Through fire and water", he emphasized Canada's linkage with and support of the State of Israel; linking the struggle against the extremist Islamic State to the country's support for Israel, albeit most emphatically through this current Conservative government whom the other parties bemoan has lost its impartiality.

Neutral to the issues of brutality, terrorism, mass slaughter and signal atrocities? Not the Conservative government, though elect either of the alternatives and neutrality, which the government's critics characterize as "balance" is set to return. To the great satisfaction of a large enough number among the electorate. Clearly, the "progressive" Liberals would see no problem in returning Canada to its fence-sitting former stance publicly and within the United Nations. The NDP's stance under its current leader Tom Mulcair, perhaps not so much, refreshingly.

To a grilling from the opposition Mr. Harper stated Canada has no intention of sending combat troops to Iraq, dismissing opposition demands for a parliamentary debate on the topic. Going halfway, House Speaker Andrew Scheer granted a Liberal demand for an Iraq deployment debate, for Tuesday. Tuesday dawned on schedule and so did the "emergency" debate on Canada's considered response to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant threat.

And so, where was the Leader of the Liberal Party, the very party that insisted on the necessity of such a debate? Nowhere to be seen. And nor was the Prime Minister present, logically enough, since he saw no need for such a debate, to begin with. Which left NDP Leader Mr. Mulcair the singular person of presence, apart from Green Leader Elizabeth May, supported by fewer than two dozen (out of 308) Members of Parliament who deigned to make themselves present.

Which gave Mr. Mulcair a splendid opportunity to blast the front-running Justin Trudeau.

Glorifying Mediocrity

"I was trained as a spy in sort of the traditional sense of the word in that I lived and worked undercover overseas -- pretending to work in a job that I'm not -- and even being assigned a name that was not mine."
"I had a flight booked to Cuba onwards to Latin America, and I was stopped because the United States government decided to revoke my passport and trap me in Moscow airport."
"They're trying to ... distract from the totality of my experience, which is that I've worked for the Central Intelligence Agency undercover overseas, I've worked for the National Security Agency undercover overseas and I've worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency as a lecturer at the Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy, where I developed sources and methods for keeping our information and people secure ..."
American deserter-spy Edward Snowden

For taking illegal possession of countless high-value, top secret intelligence documents and spiriting them out of the country and arranging through the connivance of news agencies to publish them piecemeal to embarrass the secret intelligence agencies of his country, Edward Snowden chose to abandon his country twice. Once, when he betrayed it by making such documents public, the second time when he absconded with the documents to escape punishment for his act of treason.

Treason is rather a disturbing crime of national condemnation. It represents a total abdication of responsibility on the part of the malefactor to his national identity. And a betrayal of the values of that country's social-political covenant. Mr. Snowden could have objected to privacy intrusion practises on the part of his then-employer through other means that might have excluded theft and treason, but he chose the latter route.

More publicity, greater notoriety results from such extreme actions pleasing the celebrity-conscious wannabe, and warranting the charge of a capital offense.

He directed his flight first to China, then to Russia, deliberately selecting regimes whose values run counter to those of his own country, regimes who suppress and oppress, discriminate and harm by their disregard for basic human rights. Instead, his charges are that his country spies on entities on an international scale and within the country itself in its pursuit of national and international security. In any such large national operations there will be those who abuse their authority.

But Mr. Snowden decided he would 'sacrifice' his comfort to the larger and in his case fairly sanctimonious purpose of revealing an institutionalized miscarriage of what he insists are privacy rights. As though China and Russia would never engage in such underhanded activities as espionage. Spycraft is universal and always has been. But sympathizers hail him as a hero, laying bare the process and in some instances endangering his country's intelligence services.

"For a supposedly smart guy, that's a pretty dumb answer, frankly. He can come home, but he's a fugitive from justice, which is why he's not being permitted to fly around the world", retorted the American Secretary of State, John Kerry representing one of the more cogent responses he's made on any subject.

Those who know, including former colleagues, explain that Edward Snowden was hired initially as a security guard at an NSA-financed language research centre located at the University of Maryland.

Where his computer skills drew attention, leading him subsequently to work overseas for the CIA in Geneva, and for NSA contractors in Japan, Maryland and Hawaii.

The simple fact being that CIA and NSA employees who are sent to work overseas almost always work undercover. Which makes him both a turncoat and a dolt.

Looking For Outrage

"We have reduced the travel costs of all ministers using commercial and government aircraft by over 23 percent since forming government."
"And we have reduced the cost of ministerial travel on government aircraft by nearly 75 percent, compared to when the Liberals held office."
Jason MacDonald, director of communications, PMO

DVD2007 / 5 GBMC OAP   Harper took a Challenger jet on 113 trips between April 2011 and February 2014, at a cost of approximately $1.8 million, according to the flight manifests.

 

Another hoped-for spending scandal to embarrass the federal government with the hopes of further tarnishing its reputation through questionable imputation. Canadian media, in particular some outlets, feverishly deploy investigative journalists to try to bring to the public attention various types of what they infer to be questionable expenses by Ministers of the Crown, with the obvious intention of doing harm to the reputation of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as not being sufficiently sensitive to the prudent use of tax dollars.

All the more so, that the Conservative Government of Canada has embarked on an austerity campaign to reduce government spending. Those measures have resulted in a campaign to reduce the size of the public service, to lower departmental costs, to abolish unneeded and redundant services, to re-think the manner in which the federal government serves the public. The result has been  a success where the government is set to post a surplus rather than a deficit in its fiscal year 2015.

But the story is emblazoned with a headline that shouts: Harper, cabinet spend millions on Challengers ... citing 113 trips by the Prime Minister using a Challenger jet between April 2011 and February 2014, at a cost of around $1.9-million, according to flight manifests. And revealing as well that Governor General David Johnston, in the discharge of his duties as the Queen's representative, spending close to $2-million on the 109 trips he took between April 2011 and February 2014 on Challenger jets.

The federal government has a fleet of six Challenger jets. Again, in a bid to save money, the Conservative government has considered divesting itself of up to four of the jets. Simply put, the jets fly empty more often than not for the purpose of ensuring that pilots maintain flying skills. And those practise flights themselves are prohibitively costly, since the nine-seat jets cost over $3,300 hourly for operational costs.

The political opposition, casting about for items through which they can cast aspersions on this government, claim abuse of taxpayer dollars through the use of the jets. Despite that it is clear from examining the manifests that over the past few years cabinet ministers have diminished their use of the jets. Only ten ministerial flights were registered between April 2011 and February 2014, but that little bit of data doesn't put a stop to the hysterical accusations.

Former finance minister Jim Flaherty used a Challenger jet in 2011 with six Finance officials in attendance to fly to Mexico City to meet with the Mexican president and other government officials in discussion of G20 items. That one-day-and-return event came in at $33,179. An expense that was repeated in February 2012 with the minister and six officials again visiting Mexico City for two nights and three days, meeting with G20 finance ministers.

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird along with two government officials flew commercial to Africa to attend a Friends of the Syrian People Meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco. A Challenger jet then took them to a G8 Broader Middle East and North Africa meeting later that day in Tunis, Tunisia, since there was no alternate way to attend both meetings. In returning to Canada out of Africa the contingent again flew on commercial aircraft. The Challenger had been in the region, which made it a useful alternative given the circumstances.

When Joe Oliver, now Finance Minister, took a Challenger jet to Paris he had an important cabinet meeting in Ottawa immediately beforehand, and a commitment to speak at the International Energy Agency as well as to attend bilateral meetings. No commercial flights were available to permit him to fulfill both commitments, making the use of the Challenger jet a necessity. "This trip followed all guidelines on the use of Challengers for government business", explained his director of communications in Finance.

Cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister are Canada's primary political, administrative legislators. There are times and events which call upon them to be somewhere on short notice and it is reasonable to expect that they will fulfill their obligations, but they do require the means within reason to do so. That these incidents come at great cost is no great surprise. That the niggling details and the standards to which they are held are manipulated to exploit the possibility of censure taking place is also no great surprise.

But it is rather unbecoming of a Canadian news empire that should be focused on matters that are legitimately newsworthy.

When A Building Falls ...

"As with everything in North Korea, this is all about establishing Kim Jong Un's legitimacy."
"Even when a building collapses, they're thinking about how to use it to consolidate his power."
John Delury, North Korea/china specialist, Yonsei University, Seoul

"If news starts spreading, it usually does so very slowly. It's the world's most controlled media. End of story."
Andrei Lankov, North Korea expert, Kookmin University, South Korea

In this Saturday, May 17, 2014 photo released by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) and distributed by the Korea News Service, a North Korean official, center, salutes while apologizing in front of families of victims of an accident at an apartment construction site and local residents in Pyongyang, North Korea. North Korean officials offered a rare public apology for the collapse of the apartment building under construction in Pyongyang, which a South Korean official said was believed to have caused considerable casualties

A city is not a forest where, when a tree comes crashing down the question can be legitimately asked, does it make a sound if no one is around to hear it? Well, it does make a sound consonant with the impact it creates when a massive wood club hits the ground or other trees around it. Just, as it happens, no one knows but the wildlife, and they aren't talking.

In Pyongyang, on the other hand, there are plenty of people around. Hundreds of foreigners live in the city, though heaven knows why. A few international news bureaus operate in the city, including The Associated Press. As unlikely as it might seem, a steady procession of tourists visit, as well as academics and diplomats. There's just no accounting for some elements of human society.

While over two million people in the North have cellphones, there is no Internet access. Local media publish at government's instruction. The security establishment curbs both citizens' activities and those of foreigners. But is it possible that either citizens or foreigners present in the city would not know that a 23-storey apartment building collapsed in the capital city last week?

Three days after the disaster a state-operated newspaper boasted a photograph of Dear Leader, grinning ear to ear as he watched a soccer match. On a screen display of a telephone beside Kim Jong Un was the date; one day after the occasion of the collapse. And that news outlets were finally authorized to make note of the building collapse days later owed to the inevitability of spreading rumours.

North Korean leader Kim Jong un (2nd L) visits the Taesongsan General Hospital in this undated photo released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang May 19, 2014.

Credit: Reuters/KCNA

To take charge of the situation and own the event, the story, when it was eventually published five days later, made more of the public anguish of a grieving Kim Jong Un than the full weight of the catastrophe. One official took pains to stress through state media that the nation's idol "sat up all night, feeling painful after being told about the accident."

And while the state-run Korean Central News Agency admitted that casualties occurred, no specifics on deaths or injuries were stated. South Korean officials, on the other hand, believe many people died since about one hundred families had in all likelihood moved into the building, even while it remained under construction.

All's well, however since apologies were given from five officials accepting responsibility for the collapse.

Much Ado About Presumption

"If it was written in the eighth or even the ninth century, it's still an ancient document. It's not a modern forgery."
"Early Christians were extremely interested in whether or not they should marry or be celibate or whether it was OK to have a family or whether one should remain virginal."
"It contains a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples. That would normally put it in the category of gospel."
Divinity professor Karen L. King, Harvard University, U.S.A.

This Sept. 5, 2012 file photo released by Harvard University shows a fragment of papyrus that divinity professor Karen L. King said is the only existing ancient text that quotes Jesus explicitly referring to having a wife.  AP FILE PHOTO

The ancient Essenes, a Jewish religious sect that cloistered itself within a colony of pious followers championing celibacy, eschewing marriage, was comprised of men only; women were not permitted entry to their isolated colonies. Many believe the Dead Sea scrolls were written by the Essenes. John the Baptist is said to have lived among them. And there are also claims that Jesus himself also spent some time living among the Essenes. Which may be where the idea that Jesus never married stemmed from.

New tests have been conducted on an ancient piece of parchment in the possession of Harvard University and deciphered by divinity professor Karen L. King, (on their faculty), scientifically attesting to their authenticity. The papyrus fragment is now considered a small part of an ancient document, according to an article published in the Harvard Theological Review. The text is written in Coptic and contains the phrase: "Jesus said to them, my wife."

Professor King claims to have obtained the business-card-sized piece of papyrus from an anonymous donor who had purchased it in 1999 from a collector who himself had acquired it around 1963 in East Germany. Brown University Professor Leo Depuydt is not convinced of the fragment's authenticity. The text, his analysis claims, contains grammatical errors he believes a native Coptic speaker would not commit.

One need not go back thousands of years to find grammatical errors in language. William Shakespeare, the great English playwright, was notoriously indifferent to some elements of grammar. He himself spelled his own name variously, never seeming to settle on one spelling for surely the most familiar word in the English language he might recognize; his very own name. Of course, spelling was not considered a matter of great concern at that time. So why would 'correct' grammar at a much earlier time in history be a matter of conventional expectation?

According to the translation of the papyrus fragment in question, the text reads "Jesus said to them, "My wife...." That is followed in the next line by " ...she is able to be my disciple..." Surely a quotation that would be anathema in its potential consequences to the Roman Catholic Church both of yesteryear and of this very year. Professor King claims the papyrus containing roughly eight partial lines of text, appears to approve of woman as disciples.

Including whether a woman -- identified as "Mary" -- can become a disciple. When Professor King originally revealed the existence of the papyrus in 2012 she gave it the nomenclature of the Gospel of Jesus's Wife. A title that was certain to initiate heated debate among religious and ancient scholars. She delayed publication of her research, awaiting the outcome of the scientific investigation into whether the fragment might be a forgery.

The scientific opinion is that it is not. On the other hand, whether or not the papyrus itself is original to the period she speaks of, says nothing whatever of the legitimacy of its contents, whether they are credible, whether they truly do represent a fragment of history or might be the musing of some unattributed jokester. Professor King's argument is that the text is part of a body of ancient texts outlining the reality of parts of the life of Jesus.

In other words, it's anybody's guess.

U.S.: The Great Problem That Needs to be Solved

by Elliott Abrams
April 9, 2014 at 5:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4255/us-foreign-policy-problem

Arabs and Israelis nowadays are both saying the same thing: "What is the matter with you people? You are going to walk away and you think your interests are going to be protected here?"
One of the things that has changed in this administration is that people who are fighting for democracy in places such as Turkey, Russia or China do not feel as if they have any moral or political support coming from Washington in a way that they have over the years.
Is this foreign policy reversible? My answer is yes for a number of reasons.

There was recently a remarkable article in the New York Times, based on an interview with the National Security Adviser, Susan Rice. In it, she described what the Times called the "new, modest U.S. policy in the Middle East." Susan Rice said we have three goals in the Middle East:

• Negotiations with Iran over its nuclear weapons program.
• Negotiations with Syria over its chemical weapons program and over the war taking place in Syria.
• Negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians over Middle East peace.

What is striking is that it really is the foreign policy of Belgium: negotiations, negotiations, negotiations.

The foreign policy of the United States is, apparently, now to be centered in the United Nations, Brussels and Geneva, where we have talks about Syria with the Russians and talks about Iran with Iran's representatives.

What is missing in this formulation? In one word: power.

The president seems to regard power and the use of power pretty much the way he regards, for example, sexism -- as if this is a problem we had in the past; in past decades we had to deal with this phenomenon, but we have overcome it. As if this is the great thing about the United States: that we have gotten beyond an old‑fashioned concept such as the use of power.

Once upon a time we would have said that the center of American policy in the Middle East is actually not Geneva or Brussels or the United Nations, it is the Fifth Fleet in the Gulf and the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Once upon a time, the rules for the Middle East were actually enforced by the United States.

I find when I talk to Arabs and Israelis nowadays, they are both saying the same thing: "What is the matter with you people? Don't you understand we have counted on you since the Second World War; you have essentially kept the peace here, you have been, as the British would say, 'the top country' in the Middle East since the Second World War, or at least since the British withdrew from Aden. You are going to walk away from that and you think your interests are going to be protected here?"

Who said that? We can go down a long list of people. Was it the King of Jordan, was it Prince Saud of Saudi Arabia? Was it Binyamin Netanyahu? Was it the Emirates, was it the Lebanese Christians, was it the Moroccans?
 
The answer is: all of the above because, in private, they are saying the same thing. This is the only thing President Obama has actually achieved in the Middle East: He has brought the Israelis and the Gulf Arabs together.

In the world, and the international political system, we -- and certainly they in the Middle East -- are faced with the Hobbesian situation of a "war of all against all" except for one thing -- the United States. It used to be that the United States was what prevented that situation from exploding in ways that hurt both all of them and the West as well.

Saddam Hussein, for example, invaded Kuwait; it was the United States that said, No, we are not having countries swallowing each other up. So we reversed that attempt by sending 500,000 troops -- parenthetically a feat that we could no longer achieve because of the downsizing in the military -- but we enforced that rule.

When the Iranians started building a nuclear weapons program, it was the United States that said -- three presidents have said -- "You are not permitted to do that." There was at least someone saying, "No, this is not a Hobbesian 'war of all against all': there are certain rules here that everyone will live by, and we, the United States, will enforce them."

This started a long time ago -- certainly after World War II, when the U.S. effected these rules against the Soviet Union. Obviously that is not the way the current U.S. Administration views the Middle East or its role there.

Is this approach more the result of incompetence on the part of the administration, or ideology? Go back to the president's first important speech about this: remember he went to Berlin as a candidate in 2008, and practically every German seems to have gone to applaud that speech. They may not be so keen on him nowadays, but that is a different question.

Campaigning for the presidency in 2008, Barack Obama made a major foreign policy speech in Berlin, in which he stated: "We are all citizens of Berlin". (Image source: Wikimedia Commons/Matthias Winkelmann)

The president said in that speech -- he was talking about Iraq -- "We have seen the consequences of a foreign policy based on a flawed ideology. This is the conventional thinking that has turned against the war but not against the habits that got us into the war in the first place."

It is not enough to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan; you have to break those habits. What are the habits that have to be broken? This is the man who learned foreign policy from Rashid Khalidi and William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. The habits, as the Administration might see them, are "militarism," "aggression," "Cold War thinking" and an alleged effort to dominate the world, "Imperialism" -- or what many others might call patriotism.

In 2008 the president made one of the most amazing statements that perhaps any president has ever made: "Tonight I speak to you not as a candidate for president." This was the 2008 Berlin speech. "But as a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world." Later in the speech he said, "We are all citizens of Berlin."

That is not what President Kennedy said. On June 26, 1963, President Kennedy said, "Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is, 'Ich bin ein Berliner.'" He did not say, "I am a Berliner." Fast forward to President Barack Obama: he is saying we are all Berliners.

Matt Continetti, of the Washington Free Beacon, wrote "If we are all citizens, then the concept of citizenship has no meaning. The concept of citizenship which implies rootedness, partiality, particularity has no meaning. If we are citizens of everywhere, we are also citizens of nowhere."

You hear this from the president over and over again. "Global citizen;" "new era of engagement." He used that line in about 10 different speeches starting with his first State of the Union "reset."

In the Administration's analysis of the world situation, there seems to be a great problem that needs to be solved; and the problem is the United States. It needs to break and overcome these old habits.
Some of you might think instead that we have a great problem with Islamic extremism. That is not the president's view. The president made this really quite remarkable statement in his Cairo speech: "I consider it as part of my responsibility as president of the United States is to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

Think about that. It's really quite astonishing. I would say that if a president made that comment about Judaism or Christianity most of us would say, "That's really quite bizarre. It is actually not his job."

To pick out and isolate Islam as the one religion, criticisms of which he has the responsibility to correct, is actually amazing.

You look at the Administration's policy: what is the goal here? What is he trying to achieve? It is certainly not a human rights policy; he seems remarkably indifferent to human rights everywhere.
Start with June 2009 in Iran: completely indifferent to the uprising that could conceivably have overthrown the Ayatollahs. Maybe it could not, but we shall never know. Or China: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's first trip there. When she was asked, "Why don't you say more about human rights?" she said, "We know what they'll say in response." So much for human rights in China, for human rights in Russia.

I'll refer back to the Soviets for a second because when George Shultz was negotiating with the Soviets, he said that in every meeting he brought up the names of Orlov, Sahkarov, and Sharansky. We saw what Jackson‑Vanik did. Standing up to tyranny succeeded in enabling people leave the Soviet Union.

Secretary of State Schultz always used to say that one of the ways to do it is very simple. When you are meeting with the Soviets, he used to say, you start the meeting with human rights because if you have a two hour meeting and time is up and then you say, "Oh, wait a minute. I have one more thing I need to add" while everybody is walking out the door, it is obvious to them that that is the lowest priority item to you. So do not do that.

One of the things that have changed in this administration is that people who are fighting for democracy in places such as Turkey, Russia or China, do not feel that they have any moral or political support coming from Washington, in a way that they have over the years.

They are just not interested. On the humanitarian side, also not interested. When the president visited Africa, there were a fairly good number of articles in the newspapers talking about how disappointed Africans were. After all, they had gotten a lot of attention from President Bush. Now they had an African American president. Surely the amount of attention would be doubled, tripled. Instead, of course, it had largely disappeared.

The key job for humanitarian activities in Africa is the Africa desk at USAID, the Assistant Administrator for Africa. It has been vacant for over a year and a half. The president did not even bother to fill the job.

What is he interested in doing? Military strength? Clearly not.

Go back to the days when the president came to office and said we were going to create a great economic recovery plan. Remember the term "shovel ready"? We were looking for shovel ready projects. Actually, there were lots of shovel ready projects available in the military: after years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was much work to be done replacing, for example, tanks and half-tracks and artillery that had been worn out.

But none of the funds available went to that kind of military project; apparently he did not want to have anything to do with it. In Libya, the British and the French led. The U.S. was dragged into the conflict, and after two weeks it walked away. In Mali, the French led. They went in alone, with the hope that others would follow.

They asked for one thing from the United States: tankers. That was the item they lacked to be able to refuel jets flying from French bases in Senegal. The American reaction was to say that we could, but where do we send the bill. After enough protest, the policy was changed, but it has been like that, or worse.

Take Syria, where the president sent his Secretary of State out to give what could be called "war speeches."

If you go back and look at those speeches Kerry gave in that week, they were terrific, heart‑wrenching speeches about the children being slaughtered in Syria by the use of chemical weapons. Great stuff to get the American people ready for military action that weekend. Until Friday came and the president changed his mind.

It is striking, by the way, that while among them, Vice President Biden, Secretary Hagel, and Secretary Kerry have about 80 years in the U.S. Senate, when President Obama decided to send the issue of Syria to the Senate and House for a vote, he did not even consult with any of those three people, Biden, Hagel, Kerry.

I am not arguing that he should have consulted them because they would be founts of wisdom, but I did not appoint them. He appointed Hagel and Kerry. He chose Biden. It is a sign of the immense disrespect in which he holds all three of them that he makes this decision without even consulting them -- or actually consulting anyone outside of his own White House staff.

I have been told that New York's Senator, Chuck Schumer, who is, after all, the whip, was given about an hour's notice that this would be announced and it would be on TV -- essentially the same notice that CNN got.

What is the purpose here? The purpose seems to be to limit American power. That is why I call it an ideological policy. It is really the product of the president's view that American power is a danger to the world and that his job as president is to restrain it, restrict it and diminish it -- and that then the United States and everybody else in the world will be significantly better off.

It is a William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi view; you could also call it a Jimmy Carter view. To be fair to President Jimmy Carter: Carter, first of all, admitted error after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Remember that statement he made that he had learned more about the Soviet Union in the past week then he had all the previous years of his life? He may not have meant it, but he said it.

To be fair, there was a reversal with respect to American military power, and in the final year of the Carter administration there began to be a reinvestment in American military power. Actually, the American military build‑up did not begin in 1981 with Reagan. It began, in an admittedly smaller way, in 1980.

The Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon or an Israeli attack on Iran to prevent the acquisition of a nuclear weapon might be the equivalent. Certainly if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, it is a very big deal, and not only for all the obvious reasons about security -- because the president has made about 20 speeches saying, "I will prevent…." He has not always used passive voice. He has said, "We will, I will prevent...."

That turns out to be nonsense. It has a huge impact on the United States and I think Americans hate Iran. When you have these polls saying, "What countries do you like best? What countries do you hate?" Iran is always way up there. People remember.

We see nothing like that with this president, who does not appear to believe he has made any errors because, from his point of view, he has not, if the purpose is to diminish American power in the world and the temptation to use that power. From that point of view, the president is experiencing great success.

Is this foreign policy reversible? My answer is yes for a number of reasons.

One of them is, because we do have friends and allies around the world who are anxious to join us; perhaps it will take a few years before they are able to help restore America to a greater influence. Every country in the periphery of China including the Communist countries, Vietnam, Laos, wants to join in that effort. Every country in the Middle East except, of course, Syria and Iran, wants to join in that effort.

I think that in world politics, as on Wall Street, there is such a thing as discounting. That is, people think about the future, and what they think will happen in the future begins to affect their conduct right away. The example is the move President Ronald Reagan made in foreign policy that most affected America's enemies and allies early in his term -- and let the Russians know as well as our friends, "Whoa, this will be different."

That act was firing the air traffic controllers. That was the moment when I think for many Americans but also for many people around the world people it was clear "He means what he says. He said he would do something here that everybody said he could not do, and he did it."

That act came early. It had no real world effect on foreign affairs. It was purely domestic, but it had an impact. If we had a new president who, right from the start, made it clear that the current days were over you, would not need to have five wars to prove to people the days were over.

People would begin to adjust to the return of the United States to a position in which U.S. foreign policy was distinguishable from that of Belgium. Choosing Belgium may be a bit unfair to the Belgians. Occasionally there will be a Belgian in the audience that will come up and say, "Why are you picking on us?"

But there is more to be said about Syria. There is a lot more to be said about the administration's policy with respect to Israel and the Palestinians and those negotiations. To him Israel seems to be a problem. It is not viewed as a great ally, a great asset, and a military asset. It is just a problem -- perhaps an example of the victory of ideology over what you see with your own eyes.

At the moment, Israel's relations with the Arabs are as good as they have ever been. The relations with the Egyptian army are terrific. Relations with the Moroccans are terrific. Relations with the Gulf Sunni Arabs are better than ever because they have a common enemy, Iran.

The notion that Israel is, in fact, a problem, is probably less true than it has ever been. The importance of Israel, for example, just to take one example, as a bulwark protecting the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which is important for their security, but also for our position in the Middle East, seems unappreciated. Israel's potential role with respect to Iran is viewed as a danger, rather than as a potential asset.

At the White House the U.S. Administration still says "All options are on the table, and don't underestimate the president."

The only thing I can reply is, "I travel in the Middle East a fair amount, and talk to Arabs as well as Israelis. I think it's fair to say that from Morocco to Iran, there is not one single person who believes that." I don't think he has any real allies abroad. If you asked that question a year ago the White House used to say, "Erdogan." They don't say, "Erdogan" any more.

There are so many intractable problems and no intimation that Hamas is prepared to move on any of those. What do Kerry and his friends really see that gives them any optimism in this area? I think the only variable in his view is "me". "I'm John Kerry. I can do this," which is ludicrous.

And there is a lot more to be said about Iran. What is clear is that they are revving up. They are moving from the first generation to second generation centrifuges, which are much more efficient and productive. They are moving more materiel underground. They are attempting the plutonium route as well as the uranium route. And presumably they are working on a warhead. Of course, they can have a bomb without making the announcement and they can make the announcement without having a bomb.

Reagan came on the scene and with peace through strength -- three words, clarified and explained to Americans what American foreign policy stands for.

Elliott Abrams is American diplomat, lawyer and political scientist, who has served in several presidential administrations.

#BBCtrending: Protesters and politicians defy Turkey's Twitter block

BBC Trending What's popular and why

Twitter is blocked in Turkey. But that hasn't stopped swathes of people in the country from tweeting using technical loopholes - including the president and several senior politicians.

Since late on Thursday night Twitter users in Turkey have been confronted with a message telling them "protection measures" have been placed on the network. The block was implemented by the government shortly after Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened to "wipe out Twitter", because allegations of corruption were posted on the site.

But overnight, thousands of people have found ways to skirt the restrictions, and sharing instructions on how to do so. The hashtag #TwitterisblockedinTurkey has been used more than half a million times in the last 12 hours, mostly by users in Turkey itself. Others, including #OccupyTwitter and #ErdoganBlocksTwitter, are also trending. It is telling that many of the most popular tags - as well as the tweets themselves - are written in English, in a bid to draw international attention. As in other countries where Twitter is blocked, Turks have been using proxy servers to access the network. Two more popular phrases - DNS and VPN - also feature frequently in the messages, along with instructions on how to sidestep the block.

It isn't just Turkish citizens that have found ways to bypass the block, however. Senior politicians have been circumventing the restrictions as well. The country's president Abdullah Gul tweeted that "the shutdown of social media platforms can not be condoned" - his first post since approving a law allowing tighter government control of internet access. The Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc tweeted about a forthcoming political rally, suggesting he had chosen to ignore the ban, or assuming it did not apply to him. The block has so far proved ineffective in suppressing political satire, and the network has been flooded with images mocking the decision.

Satirical images soon started to be shared on Twitter

Palestinian Water (and Martin Schulz)
The Lack of Logic

by Malcolm Lowe
March 3, 2014 at 4:00 am

The supporters of the Palestinians think that by alleging a higher per capita use of water in Israel they are accusing Israel, but instead they are emphasizing the failures of the PA (here as in many fields). And while the Israeli spokesman thinks that he is defending Israel with his lower per capita figure, he is actually defending the PA against the charge of incompetence.
The obligation upon Israel to supply water to the PA from aquifers in Israel has nothing to do with whether the Palestinian population is two million or four million or a hundred million, if that is what the Palestinians want. That obligation derives from the amount of rainfall in the mountains of the West Bank, and from nothing else.

Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament, is a phenomenon that Israelis should appreciate: a leading European politician who is a fervent admirer of their country. As such, he accepted an invitation to address the Knesset, Israel's parliament, on February 12, 2014. The Jewish Home party of Naftali Bennett, however, reacted with demonstrative fury to a sentence in that speech which referred to the water usage of Israelis and Palestinians. Quite naturally, the media pounced on that reaction, with the result that his praise of Israel went to waste and the whole matter continues to be surrounded by confusion.

Martin Schulz (left), President of the European Parliament, addresses Israel's Knesset. (Image source: Knesset handout)

In what follows, we shall be partly involved in establishing the facts of the case, but only in small part and without, say, going out to measure water usage ourselves. Rather, the emphasis will be on showing that there is generally no logical relationship between the facts alleged and the conclusions drawn from them for propagandistic purposes.
First, here is exactly what Mr. Schulz said, quoting some Palestinians that he had met in Ramallah: "One of the questions of these young people, which most moved me, was: How can it be that Israelis are allowed to use 70 liters of water per day, but Palestinians only 17?" ("Einer der Fragen dieser jungen Menschen, die mich am meisten bewegt hat, war: Wie kann es sein, dass Israelis 70 Liter Wasser am Tag benutzen dürfen und Palästinenser nur 17?" Here we have translated word for word from the German rather than use the official translation, which is freer.)

In the current English version of his speech, posted on the official site of the EU Parliament Presidency, the following disclaimer has been inserted into the sentence: "although I could not check the exact figures" ("wobei ich die genauen Zahlen nicht nachschlagen konnte" in the official German version). At the time of writing, however, the sentence without the disclaimer is still available in the version of the speech on the website of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and probably elsewhere, whether on internet or in printed newspapers. Moreover, he can be heard saying it in that form in the Knesset, without any disclaimer, in video clips here and (behind the Hebrew voice-over) here.
It was understandable that Mr. Schulz or his aides wanted to put the matter straight by making that admission in the versions preserved for posterity. By doing so, however, the fury of Mr. Bennett and his party has been made less understandable. They were upset because organizations such as Amnesty International have used such comparisons of water usage to make outrageous claims against Israel. Yet Mr. Bennett's party was wrong to accuse Mr. Schulz of lying: the latter had truthfully said that a Palestinian has asked him that question.

Moreover, Mr. Schulz was a double victim: he was both actively misled by Palestinians and passively misled by Israelis. Between his visit to Ramallah and his appearance in the Knesset, he was invited to a dinner hosted by Lars Faaborg-Andersen, the EU Ambassador to Israel. As reported in Israel Hayom "Among those in attendance was Naomi Chazan, a former Meretz MK and deputy Knesset speaker who is now a director in the left-wing NGO New Israel Fund; Yossi Beilin, former Meretz leader and cabinet minister and one of the architects of the Geneva Initiative; Ron Pundak, who helped draft the Oslo Accords in 1993 and is a former director-general of the Peres Center for Peace; Akiva Eldar, former Haaretz correspondent, and Professor Manuel Trajtenberg, chairman of the Planning and Budgeting Committee at the Council for Higher Education. Labor MK Hilik Bar was the only politician at the event. No government or right-wing representatives were invited."

Mr. Schulz, wrote the newspaper, "said that he had just visited the Palestinian Authority, where he had been told that Israel did not distribute water fairly. He also said he was told of infringements on Palestinian freedom of movement. No one in the audience challenged Schulz on the facts or tried to set the record straight."

After the speech in the Knesset, Mr. Bennett demanded an apology from Mr. Schulz. But it is rather Mr. Bennett who should have apologized for an impetuous and churlish reaction to a friendly speech that praised the return of the Jews to their homeland, hailed the achievements of the State of Israel, and affirmed: "Acting responsibly means for us a clear avowal of Israel's right to exist and the right of the Jewish people to live in security and peace. The European Union will always stand at the side of Israel" ("Verantwortliches Handeln, das bedeutet für uns: ein klares Bekenntnis zum Existenzrecht Israels und zum Recht des jüdischen Volkes, in Sicherheit und Frieden zu leben. Die Europäische Union wird immer an der Seite Israels stehen.").

In the meantime, Mr. Bennett took the opportunity of a visit to Brussels to ask for a meeting with Mr. Schulz. Water was not discussed, according to reports, but "a positive atmosphere prevailed" ("während des Gesprächs herrschte eine positive Atmosphäre"). Although neither made any apology, they agreed on the need for continued cooperation and Mr. Bennett gave Mr. Schulz an ancient coin. Thus much Mr. Bennett made amends for his and his party's behavior. To expect an apology from the dinner guests is probably too much.

The European Ambassador, by the way, is in a different class. According to another report in Israel Hayom, he wields both a big stick and a big carrot at Israelis and Palestinians alike, offering to shower upon them financial benefits it they reach peace and threatening them with penalties if they do not. He adds that if the EU decides to cut its vast subsidies to the Palestinian Authority (PA), "I think there is a great likelihood that Israel would have to provide far more." But he is new on the scene: he has only just presented his credentials to Israeli President Peres and has time to learn. Israelis will not sacrifice their security, however big the stick. Palestinians, whether in Ramallah or in Gaza, will not abandon their ultimate aim of engulfing Israel in a unitary Palestine, however many carrots are thrown at them. The Hamas regime makes no secret of that aim; in the PA it is expressed in numerous petty ways or by demands for the "right of return."

Everyone is agreed, says the Jerusalem Post, that the figures mentioned by Mr. Schulz were wrong. Friends of the Palestinians say that 70 liters of water per day is the Palestinian figure (or rather 100 liters, of which 30 liters go to waste in faulty infrastructure), while Israelis have 250 liters a day, so the ratio is still close to 4:1. Uri Schor of the Israel Water Authority counters that the figures are more likely 110 liters per Palestinian and something under 170 liters per Israeli. Since January 2012, a 36-page study of the issues by Prof. Haim Gvirtzman has been available online. One can also consult almost thirty briefs on water in the Middle East produced by CAMERA since 1995.

But this battle of ratios is not merely bewildering; it is irrelevant to what the spokespersons for each side are trying to prove. Behind the battle is the assumption is that a high ratio proves Israeli injustice to the Palestinians, whereas a low ratio shows that Israel is better than you thought. The conclusions for the propaganda war, however, should be the other way round.

Over 95% of the Palestinians live in Gaza and the officially termed "Areas A and B" of the West Bank, which were turned over to Palestinian rule in 1995 (the differences between Areas A and B are immaterial here). Since Hamas seized power in Gaza in 2007, of course, the PA is now directly responsible only for those Areas A and B. Israel is responsible for its own pre-1967 areas and for "Area C" of the West Bank. Note that Jewish settlers live only in Area C, where they outnumber the resident Palestinians.

In the meantime, however, the settlers have been connected to the Israeli water grid; they do not draw water from the Palestinian grid. Consequently, if Israelis, be it in Israel or as settlers in Area C, enjoy much more water per capita than Palestinians, the relevant implication should be that the State of Israel is doing a much better job than the PA and Hamas in supplying water to the populations under their respective rule.

So the supporters of the Palestinians think that by alleging a higher per capita use of water in Israel they are accusing Israel, but instead they are emphasizing the failures of the PA (here as in many fields). And while the Israeli spokesman thinks that he is defending Israel with his lower per capita figure, he is actually defending the PA against the charge of incompetence.

That is the simple answer. It will be objected, loudly, that the situation is not so simple. Indeed, it is not. But we shall see that the complex answer is the same as the simple answer, at least in respect of phony accusations against Israel.

For one thing, it is undeniable that Israel has invested much money and expertise in expanding its sources of water. It is a world leader in recycling waste water and in desalinating sea water. Whereas just a few years ago recurrent droughts were becoming a nightmare, today Israel has ample water. Only the price of water has also gone up: everyone pays markedly more on the basic rates and there is a punitive charge for households that use more than a certain upper limit of water per capita.

With expertise come exports. Bloomberg recently reported how "North of San Diego, Israel's IDE Technologies Ltd. is helping to build what it says will be the largest seawater desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere." That is just the biggest of Israel's overseas desalination projects.

The Palestinians have done none of that. On the contrary, wastage of water from leaky pipes and plain theft of water are rampant. The PA complains that it cannot stop all that in Area C, but what about the 95% of Palestinians who are indeed subject to the fearsome multiplicity of Palestinians security services? A friend who just came back from a West Bank town reported hearing from the locals that there nobody pays water bills or even municipal taxes. This may have been boastful exaggeration, but it testifies to an attitude.

There is, however, one major complicating factor in the West Bank. Amid all the shouting about ratios, you will rarely find it mentioned, so here it is. Rain falls predominantly on the mountain ridge running from Jenin in the north to Hebron in the south, all of which, except Jerusalem, is ruled by the PA. But most of the rain goes underground and emerges far away in aquifers in pre-1967 Israel. So who owns this water? Similar problems occur elsewhere in the world, but there is no generally accepted legal procedure for solving them. The second Oslo Accord of 1995 dealt with the issue by decreeing an annual quantity of water that Israel would supply from its own sources to the PA. Before 1967, of course, none of that water was given to the Palestinians.

Up to 1995, that is, Israel was responsible for the supply of water to every individual Palestinian. In 1995, that responsibility was transferred to the PA, except for the few Palestinians who reside in Area C. Israel no longer has any obligation to individual Palestinians in Gaza or in Areas A and B of the West Bank, but only an obligation to provide a global amount of water from within Israel to the PA, an obligation that it has fulfilled. Since 1995, therefore, the per capita figure of water available to a Palestinian in Ramallah or in Gaza is a criterion exclusively for evaluating the performance of the PA or Hamas respectively, not of Israel. The complex answer is indeed the same as the simple answer.

Thus the real mistake of Mr. Schulz was not that his figures were false but that his figures were irrelevant to any evaluation of Israeli responsibilities. To quote such figures was irrelevant in a speech made to Israelis in the Knesset. Moreover, to insert the disclaimer after the event (a dubious move in itself) did not eliminate his mistake but merely compounded the confusion.

Note that in Gaza the situation is the opposite of that in the West Bank. In ancient history, Gaza and other flourishing settlements were built where a geological formation accumulates water and dew (an important factor in that area) that fall today partly in Israel. Strangely, nobody has suggested that if Israel is obliged to send water back into the West Bank, then Gaza should send water back into Israel.
On the contrary, Palestinians have drawn so much water from legal and illegal wells in the Gaza Strip that the ancient water system has been invaded by sea water and may soon be completely destroyed. So the Hamas regime is becoming increasingly dependent on water from Israel, all the while threatening Israel with destruction.

Gaza, of course, is the one place where the Palestinians could build desalination plants. Only, say the Palestinians, Israel is obstructing it. That complaint serves to distract attention from the implications of Hamas rule in Gaza, so let us recall those implications.

To begin with, the Hamas regime is an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and is clandestinely helping the Brotherhood in its struggle against the new Egyptian military regime. The Egyptian army's reaction includes the systematic destruction of houses on its side of the border with Gaza, in order to end the two-way smuggling of personnel and goods via tunnels between Gaza and Sinai.

Gaza has thereby become totally dependent on Israel as a source of supplies, including metals and building materials. These the Hamas regime is using to create a new arsenal of rockets and a vast network of underground tunnels in preparation for its next assault on Israel (as recently reported by the Times of Israel). The tunnels included a recent one that penetrated into Israel, from which Hamas hoped to kidnap more hostages like Gilad Shalit. After discovering all that, Israel clamped down again on the supply of cement to Gaza.

If Gaza had a government genuinely devoted to the wellbeing of its citizens, then it would cut all relations with Ramallah and negotiate a separate peace with Israel. After that, besides building desalination plants, it could make its population rich by developing the natural gas field in its territorial waters.

Instead, the Hamas regime's overriding concern is to turn its citizens into an army indoctrinated with the supreme aim of "liberating" cities in Israel. Recognition of Israel, let alone negotiations, is totally excluded. It is hardly surprising that Israel does little more for the Hamas regime than suffices to keep Gazans alive.

So who pays the bills for the water and electricity from Israel on which Gaza depends? The PA in Ramallah. Only it does not pay: it owes hundreds of millions of shekels to Israel because it fails to collect bills owed to it by its own Palestinian customers.

Desalination in the West Bank, of course, is not a possibility, but recycling of waste water would be. To date this hardly happens and the Palestinians blame Israel. Let us look into their arguments.
To begin with, the PA has no money to spend on sewage treatment schemes. This is because the PA has no money to spend on anything, but depends on massive financial support from donors, principally the EU and the US. Its tax revenues consist mainly of duties on imports, which are collected on its behalf and turned over to it by Israel. Among the reasons for the recent fall of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad was his attempt to introduce a fair income tax.
The money, therefore, has to come from donors, while the sewage plants would have to be built mainly in Area C of the West Bank. Here Israel demands the creation of plants to serve both Palestinians and Jewish settlements alike. But the donors reject that demand, saying that they will give money only to serve Palestinians.

Here both the Palestinians and the donors have blinded themselves with ideology. If they thought rationally, they would realize that if Jewish settlements are handed over to the Palestinians, as they demand, these settlements will need sewage plants then, so why not build them now? Almost everyone except Naftali Bennett's party anticipates that if there is ever a final peace treaty, then Jewish settlements, at least scattered isolated ones, will be evacuated.

Moreover, Israel and the West Bank are so intricately interwoven that the management of sewage will have to transcend any final border between the two. Practical reason would demand that the whole area be split into its geographical components and that a relevant scheme be devised for each of these, regardless of peace negotiations. But practical reason is constantly trumped by ideology, especially when the PA can abdicate its responsibilities to donors.

Another complaint of the Palestinians is that the Oslo Accord of 1995 was supposed to be replaced by a permanent settlement five years later, but twenty years have passed and much has changed. Agreed, but what has changed? Mainly, that the Palestinian population has doubled, or so the Palestinians say, just as it doubled in the previous twenty years.

But why is this an argument that Israel is now obliged to supply twice as much water from its own water sources? The obligation upon Israel to supply water to the PA from aquifers in Israel has nothing to do with whether the Palestinian population is two million or four million or a hundred million, if that is what the Palestinians want. That obligation derives from the amount of rainfall in the mountains of the West Bank, and from nothing else.

The Palestinians would have an argument if the rainfall had doubled in the meantime. But the last decade has been one of droughts. The winter of 2012-13 was an exception, but 2013-14 looks to be another drought year. So if "what has changed" is to be the criterion, then Israel could demand a reduction in its obligation. In fact, or so the Israelis say, Israel is supplying more water than it committed to in 1995.

A further complaint is that Israel is demanding higher standards for any new sewage plants in Area C than for many plants in Israel itself. But this is to ignore the fact that Israel is constantly raising its own standards, just as the EU is constantly raising standards for gas emissions from cars. The complainants are simply refusing to admit that Israel has developed a high culture of dealing with waste water, which is becoming a model for much of the world except, apparently, for Palestine.

Once again, we see that the Palestinian complaints about their water situation are specious arguments based on irrelevant facts. Their arguments serve merely to distract attention from their own massive failure to provide for the needs of their population.
Mr. Schulz understandably felt hurt and disappointed by the response to what he felt was a pro-Israel speech. So let us give that speech a little of the due attention that it failed to receive. Here (as opposed to the remark about water) the quotations will be taken from the official English translation, since its stylistic adjustments do not affect the essence of the original German.

The speech began with his thanks for being permitted to speak in German. Although this was his right, in retrospect it may seem to have been a mistake. Had he spoken in English, many would have understood his words immediately and doubtless applauded at appropriate places. The awkward point about water might then have been met with mere silence. What are intended as warm words do not have the same impact when one hears them in the jerky monotone of simultaneous translation.
Two main elements can be detected in the speech. On the one hand, as President of the European Parliament, Mr. Schulz was obliged, as he emphasized in later interviews, to relay views widely expressed in that body. That is, all the usual European clichés about the Arab-Israeli conflict. This element was prominent in the later paragraphs of the speech.

The other element was his own personal sympathy for, and admiration of, Israel. That was evident throughout the earlier paragraphs of the speech, but also reappeared in the later part. "The crimes committed by the Nazis," he said, "were the reason I became involved in politics," and he went on to decry the reappearances of anti-Semitism in today's Europe. So "Israel," he said, "embodies the hope cherished by a people of being able to live a life of freedom in a homeland of their own. As a result of the actions of brave men and women, Israel represents the realisation of that very human dream." He then went on to praise Israel's achievements in a paragraph that deserves quotation in full:

"Today, Israel is a robust democracy, a vibrant, open society with all the conflicts that implies, and a modern economy. The kibbutzim which once made the desert bloom have been replaced by hundreds of start-ups and high-tech research centres in which work is being done which will lead to the inventions of the future; minute microchips and robots, computer tomography and ultrasound scanners. Israeli researchers are world leaders in many areas. Israel has only eight million inhabitants, but it can boast seven major research universities, including the Technion in Haifa and the Weizmann Institute in Revlion [sic], and 12 Nobel Prize winners!"

"Israel," he proclaimed, "has built a society founded on the values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Israel and the European Union share these values." On this basis he surveyed the recent developments in neighboring countries, especially the "ever more brutal escalation of violence" in Syria, "The Assad regime would rather massacre its own population than give up power! Even children are being tortured and killed. The opposition is also guilty of perpetrating appalling massacres and recruiting child soldiers." He expressed understanding for Israel's fears about Iran and for "what it means for parents in Sderot and Ashkelon to live every day with the fear that their children may die in a rocket attack on their way to school."

Only after all that did Mr. Schulz come to the EU clichés about the two-state solution, the Israeli settlement program in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and so on. But he also firmly emphasized that "the EU has no intention to boycott Israel. I am of the conviction that what we need is more cooperation, not division."

It was here that he quoted the young Palestinians in Ramallah, then made a second remark that prompted Mr. Bennett to lead a walkout of his party: "The blockade of the Gaza Strip is your response to attacks on Israeli civilians and I can understand that. But it is stifling all economic development and driving people to despair -- despair which in turn is being exploited by extremists. The blockade may in fact undermine, rather than strengthen, Israel's security." The last sentence, of course, is another irritating European cliché.

What pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli reactions to his speech have alike overlooked is that those two remarks were almost the only expressions of sympathy for Palestinians in a speech that was otherwise overwhelmingly sympathetic to Israel. (He said, of course, that Palestinians like Israelis "have the right to fulfil their dream of creating their own viable democratic state," but that is another habitual cliché.) So when the pro-Palestinians claim that "Schulz dared to tell the truth," they are, albeit inadvertently, recommending his encomium for the Zionist enterprise. And pro-Israelis have denounced a speech that, studied in the Israeli education system, could serve to counter "post-Zionist" skepticism in Israel itself.
In January 2012, Prof. Haim Gvirtzman of Bar-Ilan published a study entitled "The Israel-Palestinian Water Conflict: An Israeli Perspective" under the aegis of his university's Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. In response to the speech of Mr. Schulz, he also issued a long summary of his earlier findings.

The main focus of his study was on the West Bank, where he sketched the role of the British and Jordanian administrations before detailing the immense improvements to the Palestinian water situation implemented by Israel after 1967. He explained the nature of the various aquifers and the post-1995 developments, then listed the ways in which the PA fails to live up to its responsibilities.

Critics have fastened upon the fact that he refused to use the official PA figure of 2.4 million for the Palestinian population of the West Bank, preferring the figure of 1.4 million given in another study made by his university. Such a discrepancy seems incredible. Still, Prof. Gvirtzman has a point if the PA figure includes, as he claims, 250,000 Palestinians living under Israeli rule in Jerusalem and 150,000 who moved to Israel under family unification schemes. All such draw water from Israel, not from the PA.

His supposition was, of course, that a more favorable per capita Palestinian water usage would reflect to the credit of Israel. As was pointed out above, this is a misconception: it is the PA that would then deserve more credit. The lower the amount of water available to the average citizen of the PA, the greater the manifest inability of the PA to fulfill its duties.

So, on the one hand, Prof. Gvirtzman published an outstanding collection of facts, which others have widely used. On the other, by taking sides in the controversy over the correct size of the Palestinian population, he encouraged the false idea that Israel continued to be responsible for per capita usage of water in places like Ramallah even after 1995. That false idea reappeared in the speech of Mr. Schulz.
It would be helpful to rewrite the study of Prof. Gvirtzman so as to make unambiguously clear what are the responsibilities of the respective governments. This could be done by recasting the study in a different sequence of sections.

The first section would describe the main aquifers. As it is, only near the end of his study does Prof. Gvirtzman explain the nature of the mountain aquifer, although this is crucial for determining Israel's responsibilities in respect of Palestinian water. The second section would cover earlier history: the situation on the eve of the British Mandate, the developments introduced by the British, and the various performances of Israel, Jordan and Egypt between the end of the Mandate and the Six Day War of 1967. The third section would describe the improvements during the period when Israel had sole responsibility for the entire area west of the Jordan River (1967-1995).

The fourth section would explain that the principal issue facing the negotiators in 1995 was how to share the water of the mountain aquifer. It would emphasize very strongly the central fact: that the water falls mostly in areas assigned to the Palestinians, but appears mostly in areas of pre-1967 Israel. Therefore, when sovereignty was divided between Israel and the PA, Israel had no further direct obligations to individual Palestinians living under the PA, but only an obligation to the PA itself. This obligation, it should also be emphasized, is determined exclusively by the amount of rainfall in the mountains; it remains the same whether the PA rules over one hundred Palestinians or one hundred million Palestinians.

The fifth section would record the revolution in water management in Israel since 1995. The sixth and last section would expose the poor performance of the Palestinians since then. It would need to have two subsections: before and after the seizure of power in Gaza by Hamas in 2007. If he wants to, Prof. Gvirtzman could mention somewhere the dispute over the size of the Palestinian population; he ought in that case, however, to give per capita water figures for both of the claimed sizes. But he should emphasize that the bigger that population, the greater the failure of the Palestinian governments to meet their responsibilities. As it is, Prof. Gvirtzman starts arguing about the size of the Palestinian population near the beginning of his study, so the reader gets the impression that it is upon this issue, not the mountain aquifer, that everything hangs.

Put it this way. According to the PA, the population of the West Bank doubled in the first two decades of Israel rule and has doubled again since. If the population had remained stable, then – other things being equal – the Palestinians would today enjoy four times as much water per capita as they do.

If the Palestinians want to pursue a hectic increase in their numbers, they must bear the consequences. They may be persuaded by the extravagant promises of the new EU Ambassador to imagine that the EU will always shower upon them the needed extra money and food. What the EU cannot do is shower more rain upon them from the heavens.