Category: Bulgaria

Reference Library – European Union – Bulgaria

The Galling Chutzpah of Iran’s Zarif 0

The Galling Chutzpah of Iran’s Zarif

Middle East 1 Max Boot 2016-09-15 If you want a good laugh or at least a contemptuous chortle then read this op-ed that appeared in the New York Times 2 today by Mohammad Javad Zarif, the foreign minister of Iran. It is a full-throated denunciation of Saudi Arabia for wait for it spreading extremist ideology. He writes that the key driver of violence has been this extremist ideology promoted by Saudi Arabia.

He has a fair point about the baleful impact of Saudi proselytizing around the world, which has radicalized numerous Muslim communities, even if he does not acknowledge the important steps that Saudi Arabia also takes to help the U.S. and other allies to also fight terrorism. Anyone who is interested in a fair-minded treatment of this complex subject should read this lengthy report by New York Times 3 reporter Scott Shane.

Zarif s op-ed, on the other hand, is good mainly as an example of sheer chutzpah. Here is the representative of the Iranian revolutionary regime complaining that the worst bloodshed in the region is caused by Wahhabists fighting fellow Arabs and murdering fellow Sunnis, even though in Syria to take but one example at random far more people have been killed by Iran s client, Bashar Assad, than by all of the Sunni rebel groups. Assad is bombing civilians on a daily basis, blowing up hospitals, and dismembering babies.

Sure, Islamic State and Nusra Front are awful, but they have not racked up a body count to compete with Assad s. And, of course, Assad would have been deposed long ago were it not for the arms, advisers, and even troops he has received from Iran and its proxies such as Lebanese Hezbollah. Zarif s fiery denunciation of Wahhabi terrorism also conveniently ignores the long-standing links between his own government and Al Qaeda.

Those connections were summarized in this excellent Wall Street Journal 4 op-ed by former Senator Joe Lieberman. He noted that the 9/11 Commission found strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al-Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers. The al-Qaeda-Iran connections, as Lieberman noted, goes back to the early 1990s when Osama bin Laden was living in exile in Sudan.

The founder of al-Qaeda reached an informal cooperation agreement with Iran providing critical explosives, intelligence, and security training to bin Laden s organization. The vehicle for that transfer of terrorism expertise was Lebanese Hezbollah, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the first modern terrorist organization to make extensive use of suicide bombings. Lieberman goes on to observe: The coordinated 1998 truck bombings targeting the U.S.

embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were a direct result of the Iranian terror training. The Iran-al-Qaeda cooperation continued after 9/11, with Iran granting safe haven to fleeing al-Qaeda members under the guise of house arrest. From their safe base in Iran, Lieberman writes, al-Qaeda members planned terrorist operations, including the 2003 attack in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia that killed 26 people, including eight Americans, and the 2008 attack on the American Embassy in Yemen that claimed 16 lives, including six terrorists.

That relationship between Iran and one of the leading Sunni terrorist organizations continues to the present day, with the Treasury recently sanctioning three al-Qaeda operatives living in Iran. Meanwhile, of course, Iran s Quds Force has devoted far more extensive effort to backing Shiite extremist organizations in countries such as Yemen, Iraq, and of course Syria. Hezbollah remains Iran s leading proxy for terrorism.

In 2012, for example, one of its suicide bombers attacked a bus in Bulgaria carrying Israeli tourists, killing the Bulgarian driver and five Israelis. Zarif is right about one thing: There needs to be coordinated action at the United Nations to cut off the funding for ideologies of hate and extremism, and a willingness from the international community to investigate the channels that supply the cash and the arms. But any attempt to stop terrorism has to begin with the No.

1 state sponsor of terrorism the very government for which Zarif serves as the mouthpiece. Join us you’ll be in good company. Every conservative intellectual whose thoughts are worth reading is reading (and writing for) COMMENTARY: COMMENTARY is an indispensable read on the Arab Spring, the Afghan war, the future of American conservatism, and all the other crazy stuff out there.

But you already knew that. What I really love about it is that it s a full-service operation, and its back-of-the-book guys the fellows who write about music, literature, and all the things that make life worth living as the world goes to hell are the best in the business. There is an observation in a Terry Teachout piece on the wonderful singer Nancy LaMott about Moon River that has stayed with me for almost two decades.

I fished it out from the back of my mind to impress a gal at a Goldwater Institute reception only the other day, and it worked a treat. So thank you, COMMENTARY! Likewise, my differences with the arts n culture crew unsettle me far more than the geopolitical ones: reasonable people can disagree on how large a nuclear arsenal those wacky mullahs should be permitted to own, but I m still agog at the great Andrew Ferguson s mystifying praise for the New York Times obituaries page a couple of issues back.

That s COMMENTARY for you provocative to the end, on matters large and small. In these turbulent and dismaying times, we can all use a huckleberry friend waiting round the bend, in the mailbox each month and on the computer screen every morning. For any journal of opinion, as Moon River teaches us, there s such a lot of world to see.

COMMENTARY sees most of it with piercing clarity: it can t know all the answers, but it asks all the right questions, and with great farsightedness. It deserves your wholehearted support. Mark Steyn It’s notorious, and true, that government officials hardly read anything.

Memos, sure; nowadays, emails and tweets as well. But magazines? People barely have time to eat lunch or see their kids, so how can an intellectual monthly affect public affairs?

The question is a good one. How did COMMENTARY do it? The answer is that officials, like all citizens following American foreign policy, need a way to understand the world around them.

When prevailing theories fail, when conventional wisdom is clearly at variance with what they see before their eyes, the outcome for senators and congressmen and White House officials is what the shrinks call cognitive dissonance. They may say one thing but believe another, or simply be unable to square previous beliefs and policies with the clear effects of U.S. conduct.

They’ve lost the ability to explain the world. And then came COMMENTARY, offering month after month of piercing, bracing analysis and value judgments of right and wrong, and clear writing about American gains and losses. Here was an insistence on looking reality in the face.

Here was plain argument, seeking no quarter intellectually and giving none. And it mattered. It shamed some people, and emboldened others; COMMENTARY demanded that we conform policy to the opportunities and dangers that really faced America.

In years of confusion and obfuscation, that striking clarity changed policies, and changed American conduct, because it changed the way we understood the world. Elliott Abrams Why does COMMENTARY matter? Since 1945, no other monthly magazine has so consistently published serious, provocative argument and analysis.

No other monthly magazine has viewed America and the world through such a wide angle, encompassing economics, politics, society, culture, religion, and diplomacy. No other monthly magazine has published such a celebrated and wide-ranging list of editors and contributors. Cerebral, critical, and committed, the point of view found in its pages is as unique as it is formidable.

And in a world of Iranian nukes, rising anti-Semitism, radical Islam, American disarmament, bipartisan neo-isolationism, and disintegrating institutions, reading COMMENTARY is more than a pleasure. It is a necessity. Matthew Continetti I first subscribed to COMMENTARY in 1973, as a recovering liberal who had invested four years of my young life in writing speeches for a constellation of McGovernite candidates and office-holders.

Living in Berkeley at the time, I relished COMMENTARY as a guilty pleasure, feeling grateful that the magazine arrived each month discreetly disguised in a plain, brown wrapper that concealed its suspiciously neo-conservative content. In the militantly leftist community in which I functioned forty years ago, receiving regular monthly installments of the most degrading porn would have produced far less embarrassment than my growing devotion to the persuasive prose of Norman Podhoretz and Co. Yes, my personal journey from left to right-center involved the usual biographical factors, including the three P s: paychecks, parenthood, and prayer.

Paychecks, because they arrived with shocking subtractions in the form of onerous and incomprehensible taxes; parenthood, because responsibility for a new generation forced a longer-term perspective; and prayer, because my own growing Jewish observance led to the conclusion that my idealistic 60s generation, with all its narcissism and preening self-regard, might not provide life s ultimate answers after all. Fortunately for me, reading COMMENTARY with near-religious regularity helped to organize my onrushing insights and experience into a more coherent world view. In a dark time in our nation s history, while surviving (temporarily) in the most unhinged corner of the continent, this incomparable publication persuaded me that I wasn t alone.

Michael Medved Subscribing to COMMENTARY gives you full access to every article, every issue, every podcast the latest stories as well as over 70 years of archives, the best that has been thought and written since 1945. Join the intellectual club, today. Subscribe Now 5 Like us on Facebook to see more of our articles: The Galling Chutzpah of Iran s Zarif Must-Reads from Magazine Anti-Semitism 6 Jonathan S.

Tobin 2016-09-14 AP Photo/Julie Jacobson When Abe Foxman retired from his post as national director of the Anti-Defamation League after 50 years there, including 28 at its head, there was uncertainty about the direction his successor would take the organization. Unlike Foxman, Jonathan Greenblatt wasn t a longtime staffer at the anti-Semitism monitoring group nor was his background in pro-Israel advocacy or Jewish philanthropy. He was, instead, representative of a new generation of Jewish leaders, an entrepreneur and corporate executive with experience in non-profit charitable work.

But the items on his resume that stood out the most to those with an eye on ADL s ability to interact with the political world were those that spoke of his time as a staffer in both the Clinton and Obama White Houses. That raised questions as to whether the veteran Democratic operative would stand up for Israel in conflicts with his former boss. This week we received the answer to that question in the form of an article in Foreign Policy by Greenblatt attacking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

7 Greenblatt took issue with Netanyahu s video posted last week 8 accusing the Palestinians of advocating ethnic cleansing because of their efforts to force the eviction of hundreds of thousands of Israelis from their homes in the West Bank and Jerusalem in order to create a Palestinian state where Jews could no longer live. The Obama administration reacted to the comments with fury. The administration views arguments about whether Jews have a right to live in the territories as irrelevant to the quest to create a Palestinian state.

But rather than side with Netanyahu on a question of Jewish rights or even maintaining a stance of public neutrality while voicing his opinion behind the scenes, Greenblatt dove headfirst into this debate with an opinion piece. Echoing the administration s talking points, Greenblatt said the prime minister was wrong to assert that Palestinians should accept the potential presence of Jews in their state the same way Jews accepted Israeli Arabs as fellow citizens with equal rights. Since Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Jerusalem consider themselves Israelis and need to be protected by the Israeli Army, he says there s no comparison.

More than that, the ADL head says that by using the phrase ethnic cleansing, Netanyahu is invoking the specter of genocide in an inappropriate manner for crass political ends. Greenblatt s stance is deeply troubling. While he is right that the issue of settlements is complex one about which Israelis can and do disagree, as I noted yesterday, 9 there is nothing unreasonable about Netanyahu s argument.

In order to claim, as Greenblatt does, that Palestinians don t want to ethnically cleanse the country of its Jewish population, you have to ignore not merely the entire history of the conflict but also specific statements made by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas (the ruler of the Palestinian state in-all-but-name that already exists in Gaza) and the drumbeat of incitement of hatred against Jews and Israelis in Palestinian media, schools and popular culture. It s true that in negotiations where Israel has repeatedly offered the Palestinians statehood, the assumption is that some settlements would be evacuated just like the ones Israel left behind in Gaza in 2005. But that s because everyone understands that Jews denied the protection of the Israel Army or a means of self-defense wouldn t stand a chance of survival when left to the mercy of the Palestinians.

But leaving aside the merits of Netanyahu s assertion, Greenblatt s decision to side with the Obama administration against the government of Israel is telling. Foxman sometimes ran afoul of those on the Jewish right who disliked his backing of the peace process. But liberal publications like the New York Times criticized him for being a strident cheerleader for Israel 10 who would recklessly invoke the memory of the Holocaust to silence the Jewish state s critics.

That was both inaccurate and deeply unfair, especially given the rising tide of anti-Semitism around the globe that now operates under the banner of anti-Zionism. Moreover, opposing anti-Jewish incitement such as that of the Palestinians and their allies is the essential element in ADL s brief monitoring anti-Semitism and hate speech in general as well as to stand with Israel. Thus for Greenblatt to re-position ADL from its former centrist position as a mainstream address for pro-Israel activism to one that is now in open opposition to the democratically-elected government of Israel is a sea change of enormous importance.

From now on, ADL must be viewed as an ally of J Street and others on the left who make no secret of their partisanship in the context of both Israeli politics and the tense relations between Israel and the United States. This is a betrayal of ADL s long and honorable legacy as a group that sought to speak for the interests of the Jewish community as a whole and respected the right of Israel s people and their leaders to make their own decisions about security. It is equally outrageous for Greenblatt to use his newly inherited mantle as the man who can pose as the arbiter of what was or was not anti-Semitism to attack Israel s government.

Inappropriate Holocaust analogies are always wrong, but that is not what Netanyahu was doing. Enough Jewish blood has been shed by Palestinians driven by hate for us to understand the stakes in that conflict. Whatever one s opinions about settlements, the ADL has no business weighing in on this subject in a manner that effectively gives the Palestinian culture of hate a pass.

Doing so also undermines the ADL s credibility in the fight against the forces threaten both Israel and world Jewry. The ADL has a responsibility to speak out against the kind of Palestinian hatred that does advocate ethnic cleansing and to not allow its name to be used by those orchestrating a campaign of pressure against Israel s government. By jumping into an argument that a wiser and less partisan leader would have avoided, Greenblatt is the one who is playing crass political games.

If the ADL s leadership and donors don t wish to discard their mainstream legacy, it needs to demand that Greenblatt retract his attack on the prime minister or step down. Join us you’ll be in good company. Every conservative intellectual whose thoughts are worth reading is reading (and writing for) COMMENTARY: COMMENTARY is an indispensable read on the Arab Spring, the Afghan war, the future of American conservatism, and all the other crazy stuff out there.

But you already knew that. What I really love about it is that it s a full-service operation, and its back-of-the-book guys the fellows who write about music, literature, and all the things that make life worth living as the world goes to hell are the best in the business. There is an observation in a Terry Teachout piece on the wonderful singer Nancy LaMott about Moon River that has stayed with me for almost two decades.

I fished it out from the back of my mind to impress a gal at a Goldwater Institute reception only the other day, and it worked a treat. So thank you, COMMENTARY! Likewise, my differences with the arts n culture crew unsettle me far more than the geopolitical ones: reasonable people can disagree on how large a nuclear arsenal those wacky mullahs should be permitted to own, but I m still agog at the great Andrew Ferguson s mystifying praise for the New York Times obituaries page a couple of issues back.

That s COMMENTARY for you provocative to the end, on matters large and small. In these turbulent and dismaying times, we can all use a huckleberry friend waiting round the bend, in the mailbox each month and on the computer screen every morning. For any journal of opinion, as Moon River teaches us, there s such a lot of world to see.

COMMENTARY sees most of it with piercing clarity: it can t know all the answers, but it asks all the right questions, and with great farsightedness. It deserves your wholehearted support. Mark Steyn It’s notorious, and true, that government officials hardly read anything.

Memos, sure; nowadays, emails and tweets as well. But magazines? People barely have time to eat lunch or see their kids, so how can an intellectual monthly affect public affairs?

The question is a good one. How did COMMENTARY do it? The answer is that officials, like all citizens following American foreign policy, need a way to understand the world around them.

When prevailing theories fail, when conventional wisdom is clearly at variance with what they see before their eyes, the outcome for senators and congressmen and White House officials is what the shrinks call cognitive dissonance. They may say one thing but believe another, or simply be unable to square previous beliefs and policies with the clear effects of U.S. conduct.

They’ve lost the ability to explain the world. And then came COMMENTARY, offering month after month of piercing, bracing analysis and value judgments of right and wrong, and clear writing about American gains and losses. Here was an insistence on looking reality in the face.

Here was plain argument, seeking no quarter intellectually and giving none. And it mattered. It shamed some people, and emboldened others; COMMENTARY demanded that we conform policy to the opportunities and dangers that really faced America.

In years of confusion and obfuscation, that striking clarity changed policies, and changed American conduct, because it changed the way we understood the world. Elliott Abrams Why does COMMENTARY matter? Since 1945, no other monthly magazine has so consistently published serious, provocative argument and analysis.

No other monthly magazine has viewed America and the world through such a wide angle, encompassing economics, politics, society, culture, religion, and diplomacy. No other monthly magazine has published such a celebrated and wide-ranging list of editors and contributors. Cerebral, critical, and committed, the point of view found in its pages is as unique as it is formidable.

And in a world of Iranian nukes, rising anti-Semitism, radical Islam, American disarmament, bipartisan neo-isolationism, and disintegrating institutions, reading COMMENTARY is more than a pleasure. It is a necessity. Matthew Continetti I first subscribed to COMMENTARY in 1973, as a recovering liberal who had invested four years of my young life in writing speeches for a constellation of McGovernite candidates and office-holders.

Living in Berkeley at the time, I relished COMMENTARY as a guilty pleasure, feeling grateful that the magazine arrived each month discreetly disguised in a plain, brown wrapper that concealed its suspiciously neo-conservative content. In the militantly leftist community in which I functioned forty years ago, receiving regular monthly installments of the most degrading porn would have produced far less embarrassment than my growing devotion to the persuasive prose of Norman Podhoretz and Co. Yes, my personal journey from left to right-center involved the usual biographical factors, including the three P s: paychecks, parenthood, and prayer.

Paychecks, because they arrived with shocking subtractions in the form of onerous and incomprehensible taxes; parenthood, because responsibility for a new generation forced a longer-term perspective; and prayer, because my own growing Jewish observance led to the conclusion that my idealistic 60s generation, with all its narcissism and preening self-regard, might not provide life s ultimate answers after all. Fortunately for me, reading COMMENTARY with near-religious regularity helped to organize my onrushing insights and experience into a more coherent world view. In a dark time in our nation s history, while surviving (temporarily) in the most unhinged corner of the continent, this incomparable publication persuaded me that I wasn t alone.

Michael Medved Subscribing to COMMENTARY gives you full access to every article, every issue, every podcast the latest stories as well as over 70 years of archives, the best that has been thought and written since 1945. Join the intellectual club, today. Subscribe Now 11 Like us on Facebook to see more of our articles: Campaigns & Elections 12 Noah Rothman 2016-09-14 AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster While Hillary Clinton is off the campaign trail recovering from an acute case of heat stroke chronic dehydration pneumonia flu 13 , the Democrats have deployed their party s big guns to make up for her absence.

President Obama, undoubtedly the biggest of those guns, appeared on the trail for Clinton on Tuesday in Philadelphia, and the significance of his presence was not lost on the press. Broadcast networks, print, and cable news programs noted that the president was coming to Clinton s rescue as her support in the polls ebbs and amid questions regarding her ethics and health. Given President Obama s remarkable rebound in his job approval rating polls, it stands to reason his presence on the trail will be a boon for Clinton.

But is his popularity transferable? According to a recent ABC News/ Washington Post poll, Barack Obama s job approval rating 14 now stands at 58 percent. That s his best rating since the summer of 2009, well before the debate over the passage of the Affordable Care Act sapped both his popularity and that of the party he leads.

ABC/ WaPo may be a bit of an outlier, but not by much. Three polls taken in as many weeks show Obama s job approval rating above water by double digits, and the Real Clear Politics 15 average shows the president enjoying the approval of an average of over 51 percent of the public. Traditionally, the fate of the candidate vying to replace a two-term incumbent of the same party is linked to how voters feel about the outgoing incumbent.

Given Obama s newfound popularity and the fact that her opponent is a controversy magnet, Hillary Clinton s job should theoretically be fairly achievable. That s the theory, but it is meeting with some real-world resistance. There is a hypothesis which holds that Obama s rebound in the public s estimation is due in no small part to the unpopularity of both of the major party candidates vying to replace him.

The fact that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will become the 45th President of the United States has made the public look more favorably on Obama himself. If so, Hillary Clinton s popularity and Barack Obama s are inversely related, and therefore it would be difficult for her to benefit from his presence on the trail. This will forever remain just a theory.

What s more, it undervalues the impact that economic fundamentals may be having on the mood of the electorate. Even as Hillary Clinton stumbles in the polls and in the streets of Manhattan, the data suggest the public finally has reason to feel like the economic recovery is a real recovery. The labor force is on the rise, including among members of the minority community 16 .

For the first time since 2007, household incomes in the United States grew significantly in 2015 ( by 5.2 percent 17 ). The figures show how several years of robust employment growth, including 2.4 million people who gained full-time work last year, helped regain ground lost after an especially wrenching downturn, particularly for lower-income households, the Wall Street Journal 18 reported. Hillary Clinton may not be hurt by Obama s presence on the trail, but there s no indication that she is buoyed by his performance in the years in which she was out of the administration and she ll have to do a job to sell people on the idea she should be thought of better because the economy is improving.

Join us you’ll be in good company. Every conservative intellectual whose thoughts are worth reading is reading (and writing for) COMMENTARY: COMMENTARY is an indispensable read on the Arab Spring, the Afghan war, the future of American conservatism, and all the other crazy stuff out there. But you already knew that.

What I really love about it is that it s a full-service operation, and its back-of-the-book guys the fellows who write about music, literature, and all the things that make life worth living as the world goes to hell are the best in the business. There is an observation in a Terry Teachout piece on the wonderful singer Nancy LaMott about Moon River that has stayed with me for almost two decades. I fished it out from the back of my mind to impress a gal at a Goldwater Institute reception only the other day, and it worked a treat.

So thank you, COMMENTARY! Likewise, my differences with the arts n culture crew unsettle me far more than the geopolitical ones: reasonable people can disagree on how large a nuclear arsenal those wacky mullahs should be permitted to own, but I m still agog at the great Andrew Ferguson s mystifying praise for the New York Times obituaries page a couple of issues back. That s COMMENTARY for you provocative to the end, on matters large and small.

In these turbulent and dismaying times, we can all use a huckleberry friend waiting round the bend, in the mailbox each month and on the computer screen every morning. For any journal of opinion, as Moon River teaches us, there s such a lot of world to see. COMMENTARY sees most of it with piercing clarity: it can t know all the answers, but it asks all the right questions, and with great farsightedness.

It deserves your wholehearted support. Mark Steyn It’s notorious, and true, that government officials hardly read anything. Memos, sure; nowadays, emails and tweets as well.

But magazines? People barely have time to eat lunch or see their kids, so how can an intellectual monthly affect public affairs? The question is a good one.

How did COMMENTARY do it? The answer is that officials, like all citizens following American foreign policy, need a way to understand the world around them. When prevailing theories fail, when conventional wisdom is clearly at variance with what they see before their eyes, the outcome for senators and congressmen and White House officials is what the shrinks call cognitive dissonance.

They may say one thing but believe another, or simply be unable to square previous beliefs and policies with the clear effects of U.S. conduct. They’ve lost the ability to explain the world.

And then came COMMENTARY, offering month after month of piercing, bracing analysis and value judgments of right and wrong, and clear writing about American gains and losses. Here was an insistence on looking reality in the face. Here was plain argument, seeking no quarter intellectually and giving none.

And it mattered. It shamed some people, and emboldened others; COMMENTARY demanded that we conform policy to the opportunities and dangers that really faced America. In years of confusion and obfuscation, that striking clarity changed policies, and changed American conduct, because it changed the way we understood the world.

Elliott Abrams Why does COMMENTARY matter? Since 1945, no other monthly magazine has so consistently published serious, provocative argument and analysis. No other monthly magazine has viewed America and the world through such a wide angle, encompassing economics, politics, society, culture, religion, and diplomacy.

No other monthly magazine has published such a celebrated and wide-ranging list of editors and contributors. Cerebral, critical, and committed, the point of view found in its pages is as unique as it is formidable. And in a world of Iranian nukes, rising anti-Semitism, radical Islam, American disarmament, bipartisan neo-isolationism, and disintegrating institutions, reading COMMENTARY is more than a pleasure.

It is a necessity. Matthew Continetti I first subscribed to COMMENTARY in 1973, as a recovering liberal who had invested four years of my young life in writing speeches for a constellation of McGovernite candidates and office-holders. Living in Berkeley at the time, I relished COMMENTARY as a guilty pleasure, feeling grateful that the magazine arrived each month discreetly disguised in a plain, brown wrapper that concealed its suspiciously neo-conservative content.

In the militantly leftist community in which I functioned forty years ago, receiving regular monthly installments of the most degrading porn would have produced far less embarrassment than my growing devotion to the persuasive prose of Norman Podhoretz and Co. Yes, my personal journey from left to right-center involved the usual biographical factors, including the three P s: paychecks, parenthood, and prayer. Paychecks, because they arrived with shocking subtractions in the form of onerous and incomprehensible taxes; parenthood, because responsibility for a new generation forced a longer-term perspective; and prayer, because my own growing Jewish observance led to the conclusion that my idealistic 60s generation, with all its narcissism and preening self-regard, might not provide life s ultimate answers after all.

Fortunately for me, reading COMMENTARY with near-religious regularity helped to organize my onrushing insights and experience into a more coherent world view. In a dark time in our nation s history, while surviving (temporarily) in the most unhinged corner of the continent, this incomparable publication persuaded me that I wasn t alone. Michael Medved Subscribing to COMMENTARY gives you full access to every article, every issue, every podcast the latest stories as well as over 70 years of archives, the best that has been thought and written since 1945.

Join the intellectual club, today. Subscribe Now 19 Like us on Facebook to see more of our articles: Jonathan S. Tobin 2016-09-14 AP Photo/Dan Balilty, File Today, the United States and Israel will sign an agreement on a 10-year military aid package 20 , $38 billion in all, from 2019 to 2028.

The memorandum of understanding is being touted by the State Department as the single largest pledge of bilateral military assistance in U.S. history, and strictly speaking that is correct. Considering the tense relations between the two governments over the past eight years, the pact is a tribute to the resilience and the strength of a U.S.-Israel alliance.

The fact that the Obama administration has chosen to make this commitment for its successors illustrates that the security relationship transcends the president s antipathy for Prime Minister Netanyahu and his predilection for picking fights with the Israelis. Moreover, by locking in what are, at least on the surface, higher levels of aid over such a long period, the deal allows Israel to plan for the future and to hopefully maintain its qualitative military edge over potential foes. But as much as Obama deserves credit for agreeing to the aid package, the subtext to this negotiation is not without worries for those who care about the alliance.

The real question is why the aid is now so vital and whether this announcement will be followed by shifts in U.S. policy that will endanger the Jewish state s security in other ways. The unfortunate context for the 10-year agreement is another pact that also stretches out over a similar period: the Iran nuclear deal.

The administration s decision to push for an extension of the annual aid package was in large part an effort to offset the impact of their policy on Iran. Obama s appeasement of Iran has, at best, put Iran s quest for a nuclear weapon on hold for a decade. But it has also ended the international sanctions that had isolated the Iranians.

This means that a country dedicated to Israel s destruction, as well as bent on achieving regional hegemony, is now more dangerous than ever. Complicating the strategic equation even further are the Obama administration s efforts to withdraw from the Middle East, effectively leaving the field clear for both a resurgent Russia and its sometime ally Iran. That means President Obama s signature foreign policy achievement will not only fail to stop Iran from getting a bomb but has also created a more challenging security environment for Israel.

So while it s good that Israel is getting help coping with this dilemma, Obama is the author of the problem the deal seeks to fix. Join us you’ll be in good company. Every conservative intellectual whose thoughts are worth reading is reading (and writing for) COMMENTARY: COMMENTARY is an indispensable read on the Arab Spring, the Afghan war, the future of American conservatism, and all the other crazy stuff out there.

But you already knew that. What I really love about it is that it s a full-service operation, and its back-of-the-book guys the fellows who write about music, literature, and all the things that make life worth living as the world goes to hell are the best in the business. There is an observation in a Terry Teachout piece on the wonderful singer Nancy LaMott about Moon River that has stayed with me for almost two decades.

I fished it out from the back of my mind to impress a gal at a Goldwater Institute reception only the other day, and it worked a treat. So thank you, COMMENTARY! Likewise, my differences with the arts n culture crew unsettle me far more than the geopolitical ones: reasonable people can disagree on how large a nuclear arsenal those wacky mullahs should be permitted to own, but I m still agog at the great Andrew Ferguson s mystifying praise for the New York Times obituaries page a couple of issues back.

That s COMMENTARY for you provocative to the end, on matters large and small. In these turbulent and dismaying times, we can all use a huckleberry friend waiting round the bend, in the mailbox each month and on the computer screen every morning. For any journal of opinion, as Moon River teaches us, there s such a lot of world to see.

COMMENTARY sees most of it with piercing clarity: it can t know all the answers, but it asks all the right questions, and with great farsightedness. It deserves your wholehearted support. Mark Steyn It’s notorious, and true, that government officials hardly read anything.

Memos, sure; nowadays, emails and tweets as well. But magazines? People barely have time to eat lunch or see their kids, so how can an intellectual monthly affect public affairs?

The question is a good one. How did COMMENTARY do it? The answer is that officials, like all citizens following American foreign policy, need a way to understand the world around them.

When prevailing theories fail, when conventional wisdom is clearly at variance with what they see before their eyes, the outcome for senators and congressmen and White House officials is what the shrinks call cognitive dissonance. They may say one thing but believe another, or simply be unable to square previous beliefs and policies with the clear effects of U.S. conduct.

They’ve lost the ability to explain the world. And then came COMMENTARY, offering month after month of piercing, bracing analysis and value judgments of right and wrong, and clear writing about American gains and losses. Here was an insistence on looking reality in the face.

Here was plain argument, seeking no quarter intellectually and giving none. And it mattered. It shamed some people, and emboldened others; COMMENTARY demanded that we conform policy to the opportunities and dangers that really faced America.

In years of confusion and obfuscation, that striking clarity changed policies, and changed American conduct, because it changed the way we understood the world. Elliott Abrams Why does COMMENTARY matter? Since 1945, no other monthly magazine has so consistently published serious, provocative argument and analysis.

No other monthly magazine has viewed America and the world through such a wide angle, encompassing economics, politics, society, culture, religion, and diplomacy. No other monthly magazine has published such a celebrated and wide-ranging list of editors and contributors. Cerebral, critical, and committed, the point of view found in its pages is as unique as it is formidable.

And in a world of Iranian nukes, rising anti-Semitism, radical Islam, American disarmament, bipartisan neo-isolationism, and disintegrating institutions, reading COMMENTARY is more than a pleasure. It is a necessity. Matthew Continetti I first subscribed to COMMENTARY in 1973, as a recovering liberal who had invested four years of my young life in writing speeches for a constellation of McGovernite candidates and office-holders.

Living in Berkeley at the time, I relished COMMENTARY as a guilty pleasure, feeling grateful that the magazine arrived each month discreetly disguised in a plain, brown wrapper that concealed its suspiciously neo-conservative content. In the militantly leftist community in which I functioned forty years ago, receiving regular monthly installments of the most degrading porn would have produced far less embarrassment than my growing devotion to the persuasive prose of Norman Podhoretz and Co. Yes, my personal journey from left to right-center involved the usual biographical factors, including the three P s: paychecks, parenthood, and prayer.

Paychecks, because they arrived with shocking subtractions in the form of onerous and incomprehensible taxes; parenthood, because responsibility for a new generation forced a longer-term perspective; and prayer, because my own growing Jewish observance led to the conclusion that my idealistic 60s generation, with all its narcissism and preening self-regard, might not provide life s ultimate answers after all. Fortunately for me, reading COMMENTARY with near-religious regularity helped to organize my onrushing insights and experience into a more coherent world view. In a dark time in our nation s history, while surviving (temporarily) in the most unhinged corner of the continent, this incomparable publication persuaded me that I wasn t alone.

Michael Medved Subscribing to COMMENTARY gives you full access to every article, every issue, every podcast the latest stories as well as over 70 years of archives, the best that has been thought and written since 1945. Join the intellectual club, today. Subscribe Now 21 Like us on Facebook to see more of our articles: Campaigns & Elections 22 Noah Rothman 2016-09-14 AP Photo/Michael E.

Keating All eyes turned toward Ohio on Wednesday morning following the release of a Bloomberg poll showing Donald Trump opening a significant lead over Hillary Clinton. At 48 percent to 43 percent, Trump s 5-point advantage is his largest in the Buckeye State. The survey immediately prompted breathless speculation about the state of the presidential race and whether Clinton s health scare, which occurred as Bloomberg s well-regarded pollster was in the field, had upended the race.

The presidential race is indeed tightening, but can Trump really turn Ohio red? Because Bloomberg s pollster, Selzer & Company, is so highly rated, few will question the methodology. The results diverged dramatically 23 from prior surveys of Ohio, which have shown the race either competitive or favoring Clinton.

As such, observers quickly began to wonder whether the survey s sample, which showed the 2016 electorate in Ohio will be heavily Republican, was accurate. Political observers with only the haziest understanding of the disreputable practice dub this kind of second guessing unskewing, but it is only prudent to ask whether it s really possible that the Buckeye State electorate could end up being that lopsidedly favorable to the GOP. Of course, it most certainly could be, but that won t happen naturally.

In order for Republicans to enjoy such a dramatic turnout advantage in Ohio, two conditions must be met. The first is that Democrats must be depressed. The fact that they seem to be in a slump today with little enthusiasm for Clinton might explain some of the tightening across all polling, not just in this particular survey.

The second condition, however, is harder to make manifest. In order for Republicans to outpace even their turnout performance in 2004 (in which the Ohio electorate was four points more Republican than it was Democratic), the GOP must have a robust get-out-the-vote operation in place. That s going to be difficult for Donald Trump.

The celebrity candidate has not only eschewed traditional GOTV methods, data analytics, and brick and mortar field offices, he has utterly alienated Ohio s Republican Party. Ohio s popular two-term governor and the blowout winner of the state s Republican primary, John Kasich, has no use for Donald Trump. I m not making any final decision yet, but at this point, I just can t do it, Kasich said in June 24 when he was asked if he could endorse Trump.

Even as the Republican Party s nominating convention in Cleveland was coming to order, Ohio GOP Chairman Matt Borges was openly attacking 25 former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for saying Kasich was embarrassing his state by not backing Trump. Manafort is gone, but the bad blood 26 between Ohio s GOP and Team Trump remains. Ohio s incumbent Senator Rob Portman, who has tepidly endorsed Trump but has not appeared 27 jointly with the GOP presidential nominee, contends that the real estate mogul can outperform expectations in Ohio by drawing disaffected Democrats into his camp.

There s just one problem with that strategy: it takes work. You need a field operation to turn unlikely voters into likely voters, and Trump s is thus far lacking. As of the beginning of the month, the Trump campaign had 16 field offices compared to Hillary Clinton s 54 today.

While Trump s operation is headquartered in the populous Columbus area, it is clear from the campaign s focus that they are invested 28 in turning out unlikely white, working-class Republican and independent voters. As a result, the campaign has undervalued Democratic strongholds like Cuyahoga County 29 , where Team Clinton needs to run up the score. The turnout game is two-fold; if Trump cannot dilute Clinton s strength in Ohio s deep blue urban centers and in the northeast of the state, it s unlikely that he will manage to turn out an electorate that looks like the one in Bloomberg s sample.

Unlike prior presidential nominees, the Trump campaign has outsourced their GOTV operation to the party s national committees, state-level parties, and down-ballot candidates. Given the mutual mistrust that exists in Ohio between Trump and those people he needs to get his voters to the polls, this is an ominous portent for him. It is possible that Hillary Clinton could implode her recent health scare will certainly create even more downward pressure on her polling for the next several weeks.

Moreover, Donald Trump could repair all the damage he has done to comity within the party he is vying to lead, but with fewer than 60 days remaining before Election Day, time is short. In Ohio, early voting opens on October 12 the absentee ballots are already in the mail 30 . It takes more than strength in public opinion surveys to win elections; it takes organization.

As of now, Clinton has the edge on Trump on the ground in Ohio, even if she s losing that edge in the polls. Join us you’ll be in good company. Every conservative intellectual whose thoughts are worth reading is reading (and writing for) COMMENTARY: COMMENTARY is an indispensable read on the Arab Spring, the Afghan war, the future of American conservatism, and all the other crazy stuff out there.

But you already knew that. What I really love about it is that it s a full-service operation, and its back-of-the-book guys the fellows who write about music, literature, and all the things that make life worth living as the world goes to hell are the best in the business. There is an observation in a Terry Teachout piece on the wonderful singer Nancy LaMott about Moon River that has stayed with me for almost two decades.

I fished it out from the back of my mind to impress a gal at a Goldwater Institute reception only the other day, and it worked a treat. So thank you, COMMENTARY! Likewise, my differences with the arts n culture crew unsettle me far more than the geopolitical ones: reasonable people can disagree on how large a nuclear arsenal those wacky mullahs should be permitted to own, but I m still agog at the great Andrew Ferguson s mystifying praise for the New York Times obituaries page a couple of issues back.

That s COMMENTARY for you provocative to the end, on matters large and small. In these turbulent and dismaying times, we can all use a huckleberry friend waiting round the bend, in the mailbox each month and on the computer screen every morning. For any journal of opinion, as Moon River teaches us, there s such a lot of world to see.

COMMENTARY sees most of it with piercing clarity: it can t know all the answers, but it asks all the right questions, and with great farsightedness. It deserves your wholehearted support. Mark Steyn It’s notorious, and true, that government officials hardly read anything.

Memos, sure; nowadays, emails and tweets as well. But magazines? People barely have time to eat lunch or see their kids, so how can an intellectual monthly affect public affairs?

The question is a good one. How did COMMENTARY do it? The answer is that officials, like all citizens following American foreign policy, need a way to understand the world around them.

When prevailing theories fail, when conventional wisdom is clearly at variance with what they see before their eyes, the outcome for senators and congressmen and White House officials is what the shrinks call cognitive dissonance. They may say one thing but believe another, or simply be unable to square previous beliefs and policies with the clear effects of U.S. conduct.

They’ve lost the ability to explain the world. And then came COMMENTARY, offering month after month of piercing, bracing analysis and value judgments of right and wrong, and clear writing about American gains and losses. Here was an insistence on looking reality in the face.

Here was plain argument, seeking no quarter intellectually and giving none. And it mattered. It shamed some people, and emboldened others; COMMENTARY demanded that we conform policy to the opportunities and dangers that really faced America.

In years of confusion and obfuscation, that striking clarity changed policies, and changed American conduct, because it changed the way we understood the world. Elliott Abrams Why does COMMENTARY matter? Since 1945, no other monthly magazine has so consistently published serious, provocative argument and analysis.

No other monthly magazine has viewed America and the world through such a wide angle, encompassing economics, politics, society, culture, religion, and diplomacy. No other monthly magazine has published such a celebrated and wide-ranging list of editors and contributors. Cerebral, critical, and committed, the point of view found in its pages is as unique as it is formidable.

And in a world of Iranian nukes, rising anti-Semitism, radical Islam, American disarmament, bipartisan neo-isolationism, and disintegrating institutions, reading COMMENTARY is more than a pleasure. It is a necessity. Matthew Continetti I first subscribed to COMMENTARY in 1973, as a recovering liberal who had invested four years of my young life in writing speeches for a constellation of McGovernite candidates and office-holders.

Living in Berkeley at the time, I relished COMMENTARY as a guilty pleasure, feeling grateful that the magazine arrived each month discreetly disguised in a plain, brown wrapper that concealed its suspiciously neo-conservative content. In the militantly leftist community in which I functioned forty years ago, receiving regular monthly installments of the most degrading porn would have produced far less embarrassment than my growing devotion to the persuasive prose of Norman Podhoretz and Co. Yes, my personal journey from left to right-center involved the usual biographical factors, including the three P s: paychecks, parenthood, and prayer.

Paychecks, because they arrived with shocking subtractions in the form of onerous and incomprehensible taxes; parenthood, because responsibility for a new generation forced a longer-term perspective; and prayer, because my own growing Jewish observance led to the conclusion that my idealistic 60s generation, with all its narcissism and preening self-regard, might not provide life s ultimate answers after all. Fortunately for me, reading COMMENTARY with near-religious regularity helped to organize my onrushing insights and experience into a more coherent world view. In a dark time in our nation s history, while surviving (temporarily) in the most unhinged corner of the continent, this incomparable publication persuaded me that I wasn t alone.

Michael Medved Subscribing to COMMENTARY gives you full access to every article, every issue, every podcast the latest stories as well as over 70 years of archives, the best that has been thought and written since 1945. Join the intellectual club, today. Subscribe Now 31 Like us on Facebook to see more of our articles: Michael Rubin 2016-09-14 Image by Michal Fludra/Demotix/Corbis I ve written 32 here 33 over the past year about the Pentagon s decision to scale-back, if not draw down completely, from Lajes Field, an air base on Terceira Island in the Azores.

That island chain is a strategically located archipelago in the middle if the Atlantic Ocean that the United States has both pressed into service in every major crisis since World War II and which has been an important base to monitor enemy submarines in the Atlantic basin. Here s the problem: As the United States began its withdrawal, the Chinese have begun actively eyeing 34 the facility and its nearby port, potentially giving them a base in the middle of the Atlantic. Adding insult to injury, many of the facilities not only at Lajes Field but also surrounding it housing complexes that look transplanted from Southern California, shopping centers, et cetera were built with American taxpayer funds.

With the drawdown from Lajes and a cost of living cheaper than almost anywhere else in Europe it might seem like a no-brainer not only financially but also geostrategically to try to make use of the facility for other missions. That s why it raised eyebrows in Congress when the Pentagon decided to locate a new Joint Intelligence Analysis Complex (JIAC) in the United Kingdom at the Royal Air Force (RAF) Base at Croughton. Not only would locating that center at Croughton require far more infrastructure development, but also cost tens if not millions of dollars more in the additional per diems 35 and costs of living required.

Not surprisingly, various congressional committees started asking questions 36 . Representative Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has persistently asked the Pentagon for its criteria in choosing Croughton over Lajes or, for that matter, any other location. For the better part of two years, the Pentagon has responded that (1) they had a process and (2) they considered the Azores, along with sites in continental Europe, but Lajes was not the most cost-effective.

When Nunes asked to see the report on Lajes, it was little more than an outline, and most of the facts about what existed/didn t exist at Lajes were simply wrong. Even though the Inspector General is now looking into the case, the Pentagon seeks to simply try to steamroll its way through the matter, creating a fait accompli . Just in the past couple weeks, Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work has informed Congress that the Pentagon will move into the next phase of construction at Croughton.

Well, there s been two recent developments in the story. The first, which I reported here, is that it seems documents have emerged supporting the statements of whistleblowers and showing conclusively that the Pentagon repeatedly lied to Congress 37 with regard to the criteria by which it made its decision. In other words, the Pentagon determined first where its personnel wanted to live, and then created a process to support that decision, no matter that the price tag for such a decision could exceed $1 billion more.

Now, if Portuguese military sources are to be believed, it seems that the premier of China is set to again visit the Azores in just two weeks time. It is understandable that security headlines now focus on North Korea, the South China Sea, and Iran. All of these cases have one common variable: China.

That corruption in the Pentagon decision-making process could allow China a base in the Atlantic might be alongside the Iran deal the true legacy of this administration. That the Pentagon seeks opacity rather than transparency suggests that Secretary of Defense Ash Carter is now aware of just how serious the bungling of the Lajes decision and the deception of Congress has become. It s time to come clean.

It s time for hearings. And, if necessary, it s time for heads to roll. Join us you’ll be in good company.

Every conservative intellectual whose thoughts are worth reading is reading (and writing for) COMMENTARY: COMMENTARY is an indispensable read on the Arab Spring, the Afghan war, the future of American conservatism, and all the other crazy stuff out there. But you already knew that. What I really love about it is that it s a full-service operation, and its back-of-the-book guys the fellows who write about music, literature, and all the things that make life worth living as the world goes to hell are the best in the business.

There is an observation in a Terry Teachout piece on the wonderful singer Nancy LaMott about Moon River that has stayed with me for almost two decades. I fished it out from the back of my mind to impress a gal at a Goldwater Institute reception only the other day, and it worked a treat. So thank you, COMMENTARY!

Likewise, my differences with the arts n culture crew unsettle me far more than the geopolitical ones: reasonable people can disagree on how large a nuclear arsenal those wacky mullahs should be permitted to own, but I m still agog at the great Andrew Ferguson s mystifying praise for the New York Times obituaries page a couple of issues back. That s COMMENTARY for you provocative to the end, on matters large and small. In these turbulent and dismaying times, we can all use a huckleberry friend waiting round the bend, in the mailbox each month and on the computer screen every morning.

For any journal of opinion, as Moon River teaches us, there s such a lot of world to see. COMMENTARY sees most of it with piercing clarity: it can t know all the answers, but it asks all the right questions, and with great farsightedness. It deserves your wholehearted support.

Mark Steyn It’s notorious, and true, that government officials hardly read anything. Memos, sure; nowadays, emails and tweets as well. But magazines?

People barely have time to eat lunch or see their kids, so how can an intellectual monthly affect public affairs? The question is a good one. How did COMMENTARY do it?

The answer is that officials, like all citizens following American foreign policy, need a way to understand the world around them. When prevailing theories fail, when conventional wisdom is clearly at variance with what they see before their eyes, the outcome for senators and congressmen and White House officials is what the shrinks call cognitive dissonance. They may say one thing but believe another, or simply be unable to square previous beliefs and policies with the clear effects of U.S.

conduct. They’ve lost the ability to explain the world. And then came COMMENTARY, offering month after month of piercing, bracing analysis and value judgments of right and wrong, and clear writing about American gains and losses.

Here was an insistence on looking reality in the face. Here was plain argument, seeking no quarter intellectually and giving none. And it mattered.

It shamed some people, and emboldened others; COMMENTARY demanded that we conform policy to the opportunities and dangers that really faced America. In years of confusion and obfuscation, that striking clarity changed policies, and changed American conduct, because it changed the way we understood the world. Elliott Abrams Why does COMMENTARY matter?

Since 1945, no other monthly magazine has so consistently published serious, provocative argument and analysis. No other monthly magazine has viewed America and the world through such a wide angle, encompassing economics, politics, society, culture, religion, and diplomacy. No other monthly magazine has published such a celebrated and wide-ranging list of editors and contributors.

Cerebral, critical, and committed, the point of view found in its pages is as unique as it is formidable. And in a world of Iranian nukes, rising anti-Semitism, radical Islam, American disarmament, bipartisan neo-isolationism, and disintegrating institutions, reading COMMENTARY is more than a pleasure. It is a necessity.

Matthew Continetti I first subscribed to COMMENTARY in 1973, as a recovering liberal who had invested four years of my young life in writing speeches for a constellation of McGovernite candidates and office-holders. Living in Berkeley at the time, I relished COMMENTARY as a guilty pleasure, feeling grateful that the magazine arrived each month discreetly disguised in a plain, brown wrapper that concealed its suspiciously neo-conservative content. In the militantly leftist community in which I functioned forty years ago, receiving regular monthly installments of the most degrading porn would have produced far less embarrassment than my growing devotion to the persuasive prose of Norman Podhoretz and Co.

Yes, my personal journey from left to right-center involved the usual biographical factors, including the three P s: paychecks, parenthood, and prayer. Paychecks, because they arrived with shocking subtractions in the form of onerous and incomprehensible taxes; parenthood, because responsibility for a new generation forced a longer-term perspective; and prayer, because my own growing Jewish observance led to the conclusion that my idealistic 60s generation, with all its narcissism and preening self-regard, might not provide life s ultimate answers after all. Fortunately for me, reading COMMENTARY with near-religious regularity helped to organize my onrushing insights and experience into a more coherent world view.

In a dark time in our nation s history, while surviving (temporarily) in the most unhinged corner of the continent, this incomparable publication persuaded me that I wasn t alone. Michael Medved Subscribing to COMMENTARY gives you full access to every article, every issue, every podcast the latest stories as well as over 70 years of archives, the best that has been thought and written since 1945. Join the intellectual club, today.

Subscribe Now 38 Like us on Facebook to see more of our articles: References ^ View all posts in Middle East (www.commentarymagazine.com) ^ New York Times (www.nytimes.com) ^ New York Times (www.nytimes.com) ^ Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com) ^ Subscribe Now (www.commentarymagazine.com) ^ View all posts in Anti-Semitism (www.commentarymagazine.com) ^ an article in Foreign Policy by Greenblatt attacking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (foreignpolicy.com) ^ Netanyahu s video posted last week (www.youtube.com) ^ as I noted yesterday, (goo.gl) ^ the New York Times criticized him for being a strident cheerleader for Israel (www.nytimes.com) ^ Subscribe Now (www.commentarymagazine.com) ^ View all posts in Campaigns & Elections (www.commentarymagazine.com) ^ flu (twitter.com) ^ job approval rating (www.washingtonpost.com) ^ Real Clear Politics (www.realclearpolitics.com) ^ including among members of the minority community (www.louisianaweekly.com) ^ by 5.2 percent (www.wsj.com) ^ Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com) ^ Subscribe Now (www.commentarymagazine.com) ^ will sign an agreement on a 10-year military aid package (www.haaretz.com) ^ Subscribe Now (www.commentarymagazine.com) ^ View all posts in Campaigns & Elections (www.commentarymagazine.com) ^ diverged dramatically (www.realclearpolitics.com) ^ Kasich said in June (www.politico.com) ^ openly attacking (www.politico.com) ^ bad blood (elections.ap.org) ^ not appeared (www.reuters.com) ^ they are invested (www.pbs.org) ^ Cuyahoga County (www.cleveland.com) ^ already in the mail (www.newsnet5.com) ^ Subscribe Now (www.commentarymagazine.com) ^ written (www.commentarymagazine.com) ^ here (www.commentarymagazine.com) ^ Chinese have begun actively eyeing (www.commentarymagazine.com) ^ additional per diems (www.aei.org) ^ started asking questions (www.aei.org) ^ Pentagon repeatedly lied to Congress (www.aei.org) ^ Subscribe Now (www.commentarymagazine.com)

0

Dozens of illegal migrants caught at Romanian borders in three days

In just three days, the Romanian Border Police caught 60 migrants who were trying to enter or go out of Romania illegally. On Saturday, September 10, the Giurgiu Border Police discovered ten migrants hidden in a truck loaded with pallets of paper packaging. On September 10, 2016, at around 04:00, Bulgarian citizen Yosuf H., 37, tried to enter the country via the Giurgiu crossing point driving a truck loaded with pallets of paper packaging from Bulgaria, which was supposed to go to Germany, reads a statement from the Border Police. Following a detailed check of the truck, the border police discovered ten people hidden in the trailer, between the pallets of paper. Eight of them were adults, and two were minors. After a preliminary investigation, the authorities found out that nine of the migrants were Syrians, and one of them was Iraqi. Their ages varied between 10 and 40 years. The migrants told the police that they had been hidden in the truck in Bulgaria. They were supposed to go to Vienna and had promised EUR 4,000 per person to the Bulgarian driver to take them there. On the other hand, the driver said he didn t know that there were people in the truck, as the trailer was already loaded and sealed when he picked it up from the exporting company. Under the Romanian-Bulgarian protocol, both the driver and the migrants were handed over to the Bulgarian Border Police, which will continue the investigation. On the night of Saturday to Sunday (September 10-11), a joint team of border police and gendarmes caught 20 migrants who were trying to cross the Romanian border to Hungary illegally. Following a first investigation, the police found out that the group was made of Syrians, Iraqis, and Iranians aged between 2 and 36 years. According to the Border Police, most of them had filed for asylum in Romania after entering the country illegally. However, they were trying to get to a state in Western Europe. On Monday, September 12, the border police caught another group of 30 people who were trying to enter Romania illegally, from Serbia. The incident occurred at around 02:20. The preliminary investigation showed that there were 29 Afghan citizens, and one Pakistani, all men. They said that they were trying to get to a state in Western Europe. Romania has implemented tighter security measures at the border with Serbia starting August 19 [1] to discourage possible illegal border crossing attempts by immigrants. Romania has become an alternative route for refugees who want to get to Western Europe after Hungary, Croatia, and other countries in the region have raised barbwire fences at their borders to stop the immigrants. Border Police: 24 Turkish migrants caught trying to enter Romania illegally [2] More illegal migrants caught at the Serbian-Romanian border [3] Irina Popescu, irina.popescu@romania-insider.com (Photo source: Politiadefrontiera.ro) References ^ Romania has implemented tighter security measures at the border with Serbia starting August 19 (www.romania-insider.com) ^ Border Police: 24 Turkish migrants caught trying to enter Romania illegally (www.romania-insider.com) ^ More illegal migrants caught at the Serbian-Romanian border (www.romania-insider.com)

The Latest: Romania police find 10 migrants hidden in truck 0

The Latest: Romania police find 10 migrants hidden in truck

BELGRADE, Serbia (AP) – The Latest on Europe’s migration crisis (all times local): 5:05 p.m. Romanian border police have found 10 migrants, including two children, hidden in a truck transporting paper that was crossing the border into Romania from Bulgaria. A statement said that the migrants, nine Syrians and an Iraqi man, arrived at Romanian customs on Saturday morning. The Bulgarian truck driver told border authorities he was transporting paper from Bulgaria to Germany. Police checked the vehicle and found the migrants hidden in the back of the truck next to pallets loaded with piles of paper. Police said they paid 4,000 euros ($4,050) each for transport and were had paid to be left in Vienna. The migrants and driver will be handed over to Bulgarian authorities. ___ 4:10 p.m. Serbian police say they have arrested a migrant suspected of stabbing a young Serbian man in a brawl. Police said Saturday that the 35-year-old migrant faces charges of attempted murder for inflicting life-threatening injuries on the 27-year-old man. The incident happened overnight in the town of Sid, near the Croatian border. Thousands of migrants have been stranded in Serbia, looking for a way to cross into neighboring EU countries Croatia or Hungary. Many have turned to people smugglers to guide them through clandestine routes. Serbian officials have said that most of the migrants in Serbia are young men from Afghanistan who have little chance of asylum in the European Union. Serbia has stepped up border patrols with Macedonia and Bulgaria to prevent a further influx. ___ 3:20 p.m. The European Union says it will add 115 million euros ($129 million) in funding to humanitarian organizations in Greece to assist programs for refugees and migrants ahead of the winter. Christos Stylianides, the European Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Management, said Saturday the money would be used to support refugee schooling, food stamps, heating and living facilities for unaccompanied minors. He spoke in the northern Greek city of Thessaloniki after meeting Greek government officials. Some 60,000 refugees and migrants are stranded in Greece due to European border closures. The money was pledged a day after U.S.-based Human Rights Watch strongly criticized the government for continuing to use police cells to house unaccompanied migrant children. Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.