INTERNATIONAL



President Obama's news conference: Iran, economy, health

Australians react to Netanyahu's speech READ MORE
Adelaide Rabbi Engel and wife charged over school funding READ MORE
Shule body facing crisis READ MORE
Fix this mess ... by Yossi Aron READ MORE
Unions tone down Israel policy READ MORE
A Better Way Than Slogans ... by Geoffrey Winn and Manny Waks READ MORE
New lead in Holocaust survivor murder READ MORE

JEWS FOR JUDAISM WRITING CONTEST

IDF training stresses teamwork, 'klal Yisroel' ... by Yeshia Braverman in Santa Monica, California
I have been back from the Israeli army for half a year already but still the whole experience is fresh on my mind. The thrills, and excitement, the ups and downs, everyday is nothing like the previous.READ MORE

JUDAISM

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

SDJA Class of 2009 ... READ MORE
Cyber -Referral —READ MORE
Howard Wayne may run for City Council, 6th Dist. READ MORE


ARTS
Mark Twain, unknown and uncensored, is one-man show ... by Cynthia Citron in Pacific Palisades, California
Every once in a while an actor will come along who can capture and define a specific role so uniquely as to make that character his own forever---or at least for that generation. I’m thinking particularly of Jose Ferrer as Cyrano de Bergerac. Rex Harrison as Henry Higgins. And Hal Holbrook as Mark Twain.READ MORE

JEWISH HISTORY
Adventures in San Diego Jewish History

New Mizrachi Group Presents N.Y. Rabbi READ MORE
Hadassah Holds 12th Donor June 3 READ MORE
An Explanation {Editorial} READ MORE
Linda’s Lookout ... by Linda Solof READ MORE
Please! READ MORE
Borrego Desert Resort Offers New Plan READ MORE


PHOTO GALLERY
Left 1: President Obama, Barry Rubin, Shoshana Bryen
Left 2: Ian Kelly, Frank Lautenberg, Bernie Sanders, Benjamin Cardin
Left 3: Laura Wetzler, Laurel Corona, Garry Fabian
Right 1: SDJA Class of 2009
Right 2: Cynthia Citron

TODAY'S ADVERTISERS
America's Vacation Center
Balloon Utopia
Congregation Beth Israel
Jewish Family Service; Car Mitzvah
Lawrence Family JCC
Math Is Easy
Ohr Shalom Synagogue
Ronald Reagan Diaries
San Diego Community Colleges
San Diego County Library
San Diego Jewish Arts Festival
San Diego Jewish Chamber
Soille San Diego Hebrew Day School
Therapy in Motion Inc.
Tifereth Israel Synagogue
United Jewish Federation
XLNC-1 Radio

INSIDERS SDJW/ STAFF BOX

We are indebted to two organizations: Kulanu, which seeks out stories about Jews in remote places and shares them with our readership, and Jews for Judaism, which has kindly shared the essays and poems of its student contest winners. Furthermore, we tip our hats to the Australian Jewish Press and to other media in Australia, which share their stories with our bureau chief Garry Fabian.



DEDICATIONS
Each day's issue may be dedicated by readers—or by the publisher—in other people's honor or memory. Past dedications may be found at the bottom of the index for the "Adventures in San Diego Jewish History" page.


E-MAIL NOTICES
To receive San Diego Jewish World's daily or weekly headlines, click the blue box below:

	Receive Email Headlines
	» Join Now

SEARCH THIS SITE

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. —Following is a transcript of President Barack Obama's news conference at the White House on Tuesday. We have highlighted questions dealing with the Middle East, as well as the names of Jewish officeholders.

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Good afternoon, everybody. Today, I want to start by addressing three issues, and then I'll take your questions.

Iran
First, I'd like to say a few words about the situation in Iran. The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.

I've made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran's affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and the dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.

The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in Iran -- some in the Iranian government, in particular, are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others in the West of instigating protests over the election. These accusations are patently false. They're an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran's borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won't work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States or the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they -- and only they -- will choose.

The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That's precisely what's happened in the last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to peaceful protests [sic] of justice. Despite the Iranian government's efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we've watched what the Iranian people are doing.

This is what we've witnessed. We've seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands of Iranians marching in silence. We've seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and that their voices are heard. Above all, we've seen courageous women stand up to the brutality and threats, and we've experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and extraordinarily painful, we also know this: Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent and not coercion. That's what Iran's own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.

Now, the second issue I want to address is our ongoing effort to build a clean energy economy.

This week, the House of Representatives is moving ahead on historic legislation that will transform the way we produce and use energy in America. This legislation will spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet.

This energy bill will create a set of incentives that will spur the development of new sources of energy, including wind, solar, and geothermal power. It will also spur new energy savings, like efficient windows and other materials that reduce heating costs in the winter and cooling costs in the summer.

These incentives will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. And that will lead to the development of new technologies that lead to new industries that could create millions of new jobs in America -- jobs that can't be shipped overseas.

At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air that we breathe. It also provides assistance to businesses and communities as they make the gradual transition to clean energy technologies.

So I believe that this legislation is extraordinarily important for our country; it's taken great effort on the part of many over the course of the past several months. And I want to thank the Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Henry Waxman; his colleagues on that committee, including Congressmen Dingell, Ed Markey, and Rick Boucher. I also want to thank Charlie Rangel, the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, and Collin Peterson, the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, for their many and ongoing contributions to this process. And I want to express my appreciation to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer for their leadership.

We all know why this is so important. The nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century's global economy. That's what this legislation seeks to achieve -- it's a bill that will open the door to a better future for this nation. And that's why I urge members of Congress to come together and pass it.

The last issue I'd like to address is health care.

Right now, Congress is debating various health care reform proposals. This is obviously a complicated issue, but I am very optimistic about the progress that they're making.

Like energy, this is legislation that must and will be paid for. It will not add to our deficits over the next decade. We will find the money through savings and efficiencies within the health care system -- some of which we've already announced.

We will also ensure that the reform we pass brings down the crushing cost of health care. We simply can't have a system where we throw good money after bad habits. We need to control the skyrocketing costs that are driving families, businesses, and our government into greater and greater debt.

There's no doubt that we must preserve what's best about our health care system, and that means allowing Americans who like their doctors and their health care plans to keep them. But unless we fix what's broken in our current system, everyone's health care will be in jeopardy. Unless we act, premiums will climb higher, benefits will erode further, and the rolls of the uninsured will swell to include millions more Americans. Unless we act, one out of every five dollars that we earn will be spent on health care within a decade. And the amount our government spends on Medicare and Medicaid will eventually grow larger than what our government spends on everything else today.

When it comes to health care, the status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. So reform is not a luxury, it's a necessity. And I hope that Congress will continue to make significant progress on this issue in the weeks ahead.

So let me open it up for questions, and I'll start with you, Jennifer.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Your administration has said that the offer to talk to Iran's leaders remains open. Can you say if that's still so, even with all the violence that has been committed by the government against the peaceful protesters? And if it is, is there any red line that your administration won't cross where that offer will be shut off?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, obviously what's happened in Iran is profound. And we're still waiting to see how it plays itself out. My position coming into this office has been that the United States has core national security interests in making sure that Iran doesn't possess a nuclear weapon and it stops exporting terrorism outside of its borders.

We have provided a path whereby Iran can reach out to the international community, engage, and become a part of international norms. It is up to them to make a decision as to whether they choose that path. What we've been seeing over the last several days, the last couple of weeks, obviously is not encouraging, in terms of the path that this regime may choose to take. And the fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate taking place in Iran may end up coloring how they respond to the international community as a whole.

We are going to monitor and see how this plays itself out before we make any judgments about how we proceed. But just to reiterate, there is a path available to Iran in which their sovereignty is respected, their traditions, their culture, their faith is respected, but one in which they are part of a larger community that has responsibilities and operates according to norms and international rules that are universal. We don't know how they're going to respond yet, and that's what we're waiting to see.

Q So should there be consequences for what's happened so far?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that the international community is, as I said before, bearing witness to what's taking place. And the Iranian government should understand that how they handle the dissent within their own country, generated indigenously, internally, from the Iranian people, will help shape the tone not only for Iran's future but also its relationship to other countries.

Since we're on Iran, I know Nico Pitney is here from Huffington Post.

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Nico, I know that you, and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?

Q Yes, I did, I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian. We solicited questions last night from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating online, and one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working towards?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, we didn't have international observers on the ground. We can't say definitively what exactly happened at polling places throughout the country. What we know is that a sizeable percentage of the Iranian people themselves, spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It's not an isolated instance -- a little grumbling here or there. There is significant questions about the legitimacy of the election.

And so ultimately the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States. And that's why I've been very clear: Ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government.

What we can do is to say unequivocally that there are sets of international norms and principles about violence, about dealing with peaceful dissent, that spans cultures, spans borders. And what we've been seeing over the Internet and what we've been seeing in news reports violates those norms and violates those principles.

I think it is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it.

Jeff Mason of Reuters.

Q Right here, sir. Switching gears slightly, in light of the financial regulation and reform that you have made, how do you rate the performance of the Fed in handling the financial crisis? And more specifically, how do you rate the performance of Ben Bernanke, and would you like him to stay on when his term ends in January?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to make news about Ben Bernanke -- (laughter) -- although I think he has done a fine job under very difficult circumstances.

I would say that all financial regulators didn't do everything that needed to be done to prevent the crisis from happening. And that's why we've put forward the boldest set of reforms in financial regulation in 75 years, because there were too many gaps where there were laws on the books that would have brought about a prevention of the crisis; the enforcement wasn't there. In some cases, there just weren't sufficient laws on the books -- for example, with the non-banking sector.

I think that the Fed probably performed better than most other regulators prior to the crisis taking place, but I think they'd be the first to acknowledge that in dealing with systemic risk and anticipating systemic risk, they didn't do everything that needed to be done.

I think since the crisis has occurred, Ben Bernanke has performed very well. And one of the central concepts behind our financial regulatory reform is that there's got to be somebody who is responsible not just for monitoring the health of individual institutions, but somebody who's monitoring the systemic risks of the system as a whole. And we believe that the Fed has the most technical expertise and the best track record in terms of doing that.

But that's not the only part of financial regulation. One of the things that we're putting a huge amount of emphasis on is the issue of consumer protection -- whether it's subprime loans that were given out because nobody was paying attention to what was being peddled to consumers, whether it's how credit cards are handled, how annuities are dealt with, what people can expect in terms of understanding their 401(k)s. There's a whole bunch of financial transactions out there where consumers are not protected the way they should, and that's why we said we're going to put forward a consumer financial protection agency whose only job it is to focus on those issues.

Now, the Fed was one of the regulators that had some of those consumer responsibilities. We actually think that they're better off focusing on issues of broad systemic risk, and we have just one agency that's focused on the consumer protection side.

Q But is the Fed getting too powerful?

THE PRESIDENT: If you look at what we've proposed, we are not so much expanding the Fed's power as we are focusing what the Fed needs to do to prevent the kinds of crises that are happening again. Another good example is the issue of resolution authority. I think it wasn't that long ago where everybody was properly outraged about AIG, and the enormous amounts of money the taxpayers had to put into AIG in order to prevent it from dragging the entire financial system down with it.

Had we had the kinds of resolution authority, the kinds of laws that were in place that would allow a orderly winding down of AIG, then potentially taxpayers could have saved a huge amount of money. We want that power to be available so that taxpayers aren't on the hook.

All right? Major Garrett. Where's Major?

Q Right here, sir. In your opening remarks, sir, you were -- you said about Iran that you were appalled and outraged. What took you so long to say those words?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that's accurate. Track what I've been saying. Right after the election, I said that we had profound concerns about the nature of the election, but that it was not up to us to determine what the outcome was. As soon as violence broke out -- in fact, in anticipation of potential violence -- we were very clear in saying that violence was unacceptable, that that was not how governments operate with respect to their people.

So we've been entirely consistent, Major, in terms of how we've approached this. My role has been to say the United States is not going to be a foil for the Iranian government to try to blame what's happening on the streets of Tehran on the CIA or on the White House; that this is an issue that is led by and given voice to the frustrations of the Iranian people. And so we've been very consistent the first day, and we're going to continue to be consistent in saying this is not an issue about the United States; this is about an issue of the Iranian people.

What we've also been consistent about is saying that there are some universal principles, including freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, making sure that governments are not using coercion and violence and repression in terms of how they interact with peaceful demonstrators. And we have been speaking out very clearly about that fact.

Q Are Iranian diplomats still welcome at the embassy on the Fourth of July, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think as you're aware, Major, we don't have formal diplomatic relations with -- we don't have formal diplomatic relations with Iran. I think that we have said that if Iran chooses a path that abides by international norms and principles, then we are interested in healing some of the wounds of 30 years, in terms of U.S.-Iranian relations. But that is a choice that the Iranians are going to have to make.

Q But the offer still stands?

THE PRESIDENT: That's a choice the Iranians are going to have to make.

David Jackson.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Two of the key players in the insurance industry, America's Health Insurance Plans and Blue Cross-Blue Shield, sent a letter to the Senate this morning saying that a government health insurance plan would "dismantle" private insurers. Why are they wrong? And secondly, this public plan, is this non-negotiable? Would you sign a health care bill without it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's talk first of all about health care reform more broadly.

I think in this debate there's been some notion that if we just stand pat we're okay. And that's just not true. You know, there are polls out that show that 70 or 80 percent of Americans are satisfied with the health insurance that they currently have. The only problem is that premiums have been doubling every nine years, going up three times faster than wages. The U.S. government is not going to be able to afford Medicare and Medicaid on its current trajectory. Businesses are having to make very tough decisions about whether we drop coverage or we further restrict coverage.

So the notion that somehow we can just keep on doing what we're doing and that's okay, that's just not true. We have a longstanding critical problem in our health care system that is pulling down our economy, it's burdening families, it's burdening businesses, and it is the primary driver of our federal deficits. All right?

So if we start from the premise that the status quo is unacceptable, then that means we're going to have to bring about some serious changes. What I've said is, our top priority has to be to control costs. And that means not just tinkering around the edges. It doesn't mean just lopping off reimbursements for doctors in any given year because we're trying to fix our budget. It means that we look at the kinds of incentives that exist, what our delivery system is like, why it is that some communities are spending 30 percent less than other communities but getting better health care outcomes, and figuring out how can we make sure that everybody is benefiting from lower costs and better quality by improving practices. It means health IT. It means prevention.

So all these things are the starting point, I think, for reform. And I've said very clearly: If any bill arrives from Congress that is not controlling costs, that's not a bill I can support. It's going to have to control costs. It's going to have to be paid for. So there's been a lot of talk about, well, a trillion-dollar price tag. What I've said is, if we're going to spend that much money, then it's going to be largely funded through reallocating dollars that are already in the health care system but aren't being spent well. If we're spending $177 billion over 10 years to subsidize insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, when there's no showing that people are healthier using that program than the regular Medicare program, well, that's not a good deal for taxpayers. And we're going to take that money and we're going to use it to provide better care at a cheaper cost to the American people. So that's point number one.

Number two, while we are in the process of dealing with the cost issue, I think it's also wise policy and the right thing to do to start providing coverage for people who don't have health insurance or are underinsured, are paying a lot of money for high deductibles. I get letters -- two, three letters a day -- that I read of families who don't have health insurance, are going bankrupt, are on the brink of losing their insurance; have deductibles that are so high that even with insurance they end up with $50,000, $100,000 worth of debt; are at risk of losing their homes.

And that has to be part of reform, making sure that even if you've got health insurance now, you are not worried that when you lose your job or your employer decides to change policies that somehow you're going to be out of luck. I think about the woman who was in Wisconsin that I was with, who introduced me up in Green Bay -- 36 years old, double mastectomy; breast cancer has now moved to her bones and she's got two little kids, a husband with a job. They had health insurance, but they're still $50,000 in debt, and she's thinking, my main legacy, if I don't survive this thing, is going to be leaving $100,000 worth of debt. So those are the things that I'm prioritizing.

Now, the public plan I think is a important tool to discipline insurance companies. What we've said is, under our proposal, let's have a system the same way that federal employees do, same way that members of Congress do, where -- we call it an "exchange," or you can call it a "marketplace" -- where essentially you've got a whole bunch of different plans. If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing. You keep your plan. You keep your doctor. If your employer is providing you good health insurance, terrific, we're not going to mess with it.

But if you're a small business person, if the insurance that's being offered is something you can't afford, if you want to shop for a better price, then you can go to this exchange, this marketplace, and you can look: Okay, this is how much this plan costs, this is how much that plan costs, this is what the coverage is like, this is what fits for my family. As one of those options, for us to be able to say, here's a public option that's not profit-driven, that can keep down administrative costs and that provides you good, quality care for a reasonable price -- as one of the options for you to choose, I think that makes sense.

Q Won't that drive private insurers out of business?

THE PRESIDENT: Why would it drive private insurers out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care, if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government -- which they say can't run anything -- suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical.

Now, I think that there's going to be some healthy debates in Congress about the shape that this takes. I think there can be some legitimate concerns on the part of private insurers thatif any public plan is simply being subsidized by

taxpayers endlessly, that over time they can't compete with the government just printing money.

So there are going to be some I think legitimate debates to behad about how this private plan takes shape. But just conceptually, the notion that all these insurance companies who say they're giving consumers the best possible deal, that they can't compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision what's the best deal. That defies logic, which is why I think you've seen in the polling data overwhelming support for a public plan. All right?

Q Is that non-negotiable?

THE PRESIDENT: Chip.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Following up on Major's question, some republicans on Capitol Hill -- John McCain and Lindsey Graham, for example -- have said that up to this point, your response on Iran has been timid and weak. Today, it sounded a lot stronger. It sounded like the kind of speech John McCain has been urging you to give, saying that those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history, referring to an iron fist in Iran -- "deplore," "appalled," "outraged." Were you influenced at all by John McCain and Lindsey Graham accusing you of being timid and weak?

THE PRESIDENT: What do you think? (Laughter.) Look, the -- I think John McCain has genuine passion about many of these international issues, and I think that all of us share a belief that we want justice to prevail. But only I'm the President of the United States, and I've got responsibilities in making certain that we are continually advancing our national security interests and that we are not used as a tool to be exploited by other countries.

I mean, you guys must have seen the reports. They've got some of the comments that I've made being mistranslated in Iran, suggesting that I'm telling rioters to go out and riot some more. There are reports suggesting that the CIA is behind all this -- all of which are patently false. But it gives you a sense of the narrative that the Iranian government would love to play into. So the -- members of Congress, they've got their constitutional duties, and I'm sure they will carry them out in the way that they think is appropriate. I'm President of the United States, and I'll carry out my duties as I think are appropriate. All right?

Q By speaking so strongly today, aren't you giving the leadership in Iran the fodder to make those arguments that it is about the United States?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, I mean, I think that -- we can parse this as much as we want. I think if you look at the statements that I've made, they've been very consistent. I just made a statement on Saturday in which we said we deplore the violence. And so I think that in the hothouse of Washington, there may be all kinds of stuff going back and forth in terms of Republican critics versus the administration. That's not what is relevant to the Iranian people. What's relevant to them right now is, are they going to have their voices heard?

And, frankly, a lot of them aren't paying a lot of attention to what's being said on Capitol Hill, and probably aren't spending a lot of time thinking about what's being said here. They're trying to figure out how can they make sure justice is served in Iran.

Q So there's no news in your statement today?

THE PRESIDENT: Chuck Todd.

Q Mr. President, I want to follow up on Iran. You have avoided twice spelling out consequences. You've hinted that there would be, from the international community, if they continue to violate -- you said violate these norms. You seem to hint that there are human rights violations taking place.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not hinting. I think that when a young woman gets shot on the street when she gets out of her car, that's a problem.

Q Then why won't you spell out the consequences that the Iranian --

THE PRESIDENT: Because I think, Chuck, that we don't know yet how this thing is going to play out. I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle. I'm not.

Q But shouldn't -- I mean, shouldn't the world and Iran --

THE PRESIDENT: Chuck, I answered --

Q -- but shouldn't the Iranian regime know that there are consequences?

THE PRESIDENT: I answered the question, Chuck, which is that we don't yet know how this is going to play out.

Jake Tapper.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Before I ask my question, I'm wondering if you could actually answer David's. Is the public plan non-negotiable?

THE PRESIDENT: That's your question. (Laughter.)

Q Well, you didn't answer --

THE PRESIDENT: You think you're going to -- are you the ombudsman for the White House press corps? (Laughter.) What's your -- is that your question? (Laughter.)

Q Then I have a two-part question. (Laughter.) Is the public plan non-negotiable? And while I appreciate your Spock-like language about the logic of the health care plan, the public plan, it does seem logical to a lot of people that if the government is offering a cheaper health care plan, then lots of employers will want to have their employees covered by that cheaper plan, which will not have to be for profit, unlike private plans, and may possibly benefit from some government subsidies, who knows. And then their employees would be signed up for this public plan, which would violate what you're promising the American people, that they will not have to change health care plans if they like the plan they have.

THE PRESIDENT: I got you. You're pitching, I'm catching. I got the question. First of all, was the reference to Spock -- is that a crack on my ears? (Laughter.) All right, I just want to make sure. No? {Editor's Note: Spock was a character in "Star Trek" played by the Jewish actor Leonard Nimoy}

Q I would never make fun of your ears, sir. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: In answer to David's question, which you co-opted, we are still early in this process, so we have not drawn lines in the sand other than that reform has to control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don't have health insurance or are underinsured. Those are the broad parameters that we've discussed.

There are a whole host of other issues where ultimately I may have a strong opinion, and I will express those to members of Congress as this is shaping up. It's too early to say that. Right now I will say that our position is that a public plan makes sense.

Now, let me go to the broader question you made about the public plan. As I said before, I think that there is a legitimate concern if the public plan was simply eating off the taxpayer trough, that it would be hard for private insurers to complete. If, on the other hand, the public plan is structured in such a way where they've got to collect premiums and they've got to provide good services, then if what the insurance companies are saying is true, that they're doing their best to serve their customers, that they're in the business of keeping people well and giving them security when they get sick, they should be able to compete.

Now, if it turns out that the public plan, for example, is able to reduce administrative costs significantly, then you know what? I'd like insurance companies to take note and say, hey, if the public plan can do that, why can't we? And that's good for everybody in the system. And I don't think there should be any objection to that.

Now, by the way, I should point out that part of the reform that we've suggested is that if you want to be a private insurer as part of the exchange, as part of this marketplace, this menu of options that people can choose from, we're going to have some different rules for all insurance companies -- one of them being that you can't preclude people from getting health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, you can't cherry pick and just take the healthiest people.

So there are going to be some ground rules that are going to apply to all insurance companies, because I think the American people understand that, too often, insurance companies have been spending more time thinking about how to take premiums and then avoid providing people coverage than they have been thinking about how can we make sure that insurance is there, health care is there when families need it.

But I'm confident that if -- I take those advocates of the free market to heart when they say that the free market is innovative and is going to compete on service and is going to compete on their ability to deliver good care to families. And if that's the case then this just becomes one more option. If it's not the case then I think that that's something that the American people should know.

Q I'm sorry, but what about keeping your promise to the American people that they won't have to change plans even if employers --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, no, no, I mean -- when I say if you have your plan and you like it and your doctor has a plan, or you have a doctor and you like your doctor that you don't have to change plans, what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.

Now, are there going to be employers right now -- assuming we don't do anything -- let's say that we take the advice of some folks who are out there and say, oh, this is not the time to do health care, we can't afford it, it's too complicated, let's take our time, et cetera. So let's assume that nothing happened. I can guarantee you that there's a possibility for a whole lot of Americans out there that they're not going to end up having the same health care they have, because what's going to happen is, as costs keep on going up, employers are going to start making decisions: We've got to raise premiums on our employees; in some cases, we can't provide health insurance at all.

And so there are going to be a whole set of changes out there. That's exactly why health reform is so important.

Margaret, from McClatchy. Where's Margaret? There you are.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. As a former smoker, I understand the frustration and the fear that comes with quitting. But with the new law that you signed yesterday regulating the tobacco industry, I'd like to ask you a few questions. How many cigarettes a day --

THE PRESIDENT: A few questions? (Laughter.)

Q How many cigarettes a day do you now smoke? Do you smoke alone or in the presence of other people? And do you believe the new law would help you to quit? If so, why?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, the new law that was put in place is not about me, it's about the next generation of kids coming up. So I think it's fair, Margaret, to just say that you just think it's neat to ask me about my smoking, as opposed to it being relevant to my new law. (Laughter.) But that's fine, I understand. It's an interesting human -- it's an interesting human interest story.

But I've said before that, as a former smoker, I constantly struggle with it. Have I fallen off the wagon sometimes? Yes. Am I a daily smoker, a constant smoker? No. I don't do it in front of my kids, I don't do it in front of my family, and I would say that I am 95 percent cured, but there are times where -- (laughter) -- there are times where I mess up. And, I mean, I've said this before. I get this question about once every month or so, and I don't know what to tell you, other than the fact that, like folks who go to AA, once you've gone down this path, then it's something you continually struggle with, which is precisely why the legislation we signed was so important, because what we don't want is kids going down that path in the first place. Okay?

Macarena Vidal?

Q Mr. President, you're meeting today with Chilean President Michelle Bachelet. You're meeting next week with Alvaro Uribe from Colombia. Two months ago in Trinidad at the Summit of the Americas, you said that -- you called on Latin American countries to help you with deeds, not words, particularly towards less democratic countries. Have you noticed any particular progress in these two months, and can you give us examples?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I'm very much looking forward to seeing President Bachelet. I think she's one of the finest leaders in Latin America, a very capable person. If you look at how Chile has handled the recession, they've handled it very well in part because the surpluses that they got when copper prices were high they set aside. And so they had the resources to deal with the downturn. It's a good lesson for the United States. When we had surpluses, they got dissipated.

We think that there's enormous possibilities of making progress in Latin America generally. One of the things that I'll be talking about with President Bachelet is the coordination and cooperation between the United State and Chile on clean energy. We'll have an announcement when we do our press conference after my bilateral meeting on some important clean energy partnerships. We're making important progress when it comes to exchanges on cancer research. We continue to have a robust trade regime with Chile. And, by the way, Chile has actually entered into some very interesting partnerships not just with the federal government, but also with state governments like California.

So I think the relationship that we have with Chile -- which, by the way, does not fall in line with U.S. foreign policy on every single issue -- but it's a respectful policy. Chile is an important partner. I think that's the model that we want: partnership. The United States doesn't dictate how Chile should view its own interests, but in fact we've achieved great cooperation. And I will be looking at President Bachelet giving us further advice in terms of how we can take the kind of relationship we have with Chile and expand that to our relationships throughout Latin America.

Q But my question is not only about that -- Chile, but about Latin American countries giving you a hand on -- against less democratic countries.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the point is, is that I think Chile is leading by example. So I'm using Chile as an example. But the same is true in Brazil, for example. I mean, President Lula came in, and he's got a very different political orientation than most Americans do. He came up through the trade union movement. He was perceived as a strong leftist. It turns out that he was a very practical person, who although maintains relationships across the political spectrum in Latin America, has instituted all sorts of smart market reforms that have made Brazil prosper.

And so if you take a Bachelet or a Lula, and the United States has a good working relationship with them, then I think that points the way for other countries that may be where the democratic tradition is not as deeply embedded as we'd like it to be. And we can make common cause in showing those countries that, in fact, democracy, respect for property rights, respects for market-based economies, rule of law -- that all those things can in fact lead to greater prosperity, that that's not just a U.S. agenda, but that's a smart way to increase the prosperity of your own people.

Okay, Hans Nichols. Hans.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. If I can just return to the economy more generally. When you were selling the economic stimulus package, you talked and your advisors and economists talked about keeping unemployment below 8 percent. Last week you acknowledged that unemployment is likely to reach double digits, being 10 percent. Do you think you need a second stimulus package?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, not yet, because I think it's important to see how the economy evolves and how effective the first stimulus is. I think it's fair to say that -- keep in mind the stimulus package was the first thing we did, and we did it a couple of weeks after inauguration. At that point nobody understood what the depths of this recession were going to look like. If you recall, it was only significantly later that we suddenly get a report that the economy had tanked.

And so it's not surprising then that we missed the mark in terms of our estimates of where unemployment would go. I think it's pretty clear now that unemployment will end up going over 10 percent, if you just look at the pattern, because of the fact that even after employers and businesses start investing again and start hiring again, typically it takes a while for that employment number to catch up with economic recovery. And we're still not at actual recovery yet.

So I anticipate that this is going to be a difficult -- difficult year, a difficult period.

Q What's the high water mark, then, for unemployment? Eleven percent?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm not suggesting that I have a crystal ball. Since you just threw back at us our last prognosis, let's not -- let's not engage in another one.


Q Does that mean you won't be making predictions ever? (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: But what I am saying is that -- here are some things I know for certain. In the absence of the stimulus, I think our recession would be much worse. It would have declined -- without the Recovery Act -- we know for a fact that states, for example, would have laid off a lot more teachers, a lot more police officers, a lot more firefighters, every single one of those individuals whose jobs were saved. As a consequence, they are still making their mortgage payments, they are still shopping. So we know that the Recovery Act has had an impact.

Now, what we also know is this was the worst recession since the Great Depression, and people are going through a very tough time right now. And I don't expect them to be satisfied. I mean, one thing that -- as I sometimes glance at the various news outlets represented here, I know that they're sometimes reporting of, oh, the administration is worried about this, or their poll numbers are going down there -- look, the American people have a right to feel like this is a tough time right now. What's incredible to me is how resilient the American people have been and how they are still more optimistic than the facts alone would justify, because this is a tough, tough period.

And I don't feel satisfied with the progress that we've made. We've got to get our Recovery Act money out faster. We've got to make sure that the programs that we've put in place are working the way they're supposed to. I think, for example, our mortgage program has actually helped to modify mortgages for a lot of people, but it hasn't been keeping pace with all the foreclosures that are taking place. I get letters every day from people who say, you know, I appreciate that you put out this mortgage program, but the bank is still not letting me modify my mortgage and I'm about to lose my home. And then I've got to call my staff and team and find out why isn't it working for these folks, and can we adjust it, can we tweak it, can we make it more aggressive?

This is a very, very difficult process. And what I've got to do is to make sure that we're focused both on the short term, how can we provide families immediate relief and jumpstart the economy as quickly as possible; and I've got to keep my eye on the long term, and the long term is making sure that by reforming our health care system, by passing serious energy legislation that makes us a clean energy economy, by revamping our education system, by finally getting the financial regulatory reforms in place that are necessary for the 21st century -- by doing all those things, we've got a foundation for long-term economic growth, and we don't end up having to juice up the economy artificially through the kinds of bubble strategies that helped to get us in the situation that we're in today.

Okay. I've got time for two more questions. April. Where's April?

Q Right here. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: There you are. How are you?

Q I'm fine. Back on the economy, Mr. President, people are criticizing this road to recovery plan. Specifically, there are reports in The Washington Post that say that the African America unemployment rate will go to 20 percent by the end of this year. And then you had your Chairman of Economic Advisers say the target intervention may come next year if nothing changes. Why not target intervention now to stop the bloodletting in the black unemployment rate?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, first of all, we know that the African American unemployment rate, the Latino unemployment rate, are consistently higher than the national average. And so, if the economy as a whole is doing poorly, then you know that the African American community is going to be doing poorly, and they're going to be hit even harder. And the best thing that I can do for the African American community or the Latino community or the Asian community, whatever community, is to get the economy as a whole moving. If I don't -- hold on one second, let me answer the question -- if I don't do that, then I'm not going to be able to help anybody. So that's priority number one.

It is true that in certain inner-city communities, the unemployment rate is -- was already sky high even before this recession. The ladders available for people to enter into the job market are even worse. And so we are interested in looking at proven programs that help people on a pathway to jobs.

There was a reason why right before Father's Day I went to a program here locally in Washington called Year Up, which has a proven track record of taking young, mostly minority people, some of whom have graduated from high school, some maybe who've just gotten their GED, and trained them on computers and provide them other technical skills, but also train them on how to carry themselves in an office, how to write an e-mail -- some of the social skills that will allow them to be more employable. They've got a terrific placement rate after this one-year program. If there are ways that we can potentially duplicate some of those programs, then we're going to do so.

So part of what we want to do is to find tools that will give people more opportunity, but the most important thing I can do is to lift the economy overall. And that's what my strategy is focused on.

All right. Last question. Suzanne.

Q Thank you. Back to Iran, putting a human face on this. Over the weekend, we saw a shocking video of this woman, Neda, who had been shot in the chest and bled to death. Have you seen this video?

THE PRESIDENT: I have.

Q What's your reaction?

THE PRESIDENT: It's heartbreaking. It's heartbreaking. And I think that anybody who sees it knows that there's something fundamentally unjust about that.

Q We also have people on the ground who have been saying that the streets are quieter now and that is because they feel that they're paralyzed by fear -- fear of people gone missing, fear of violence, that perhaps this is a movement that's gone underground or perhaps is dying. Do you have any concern over that?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I have concern about how peaceful demonstrators and people who want their votes counted may be stifled from expressing those concerns. I think, as I said before, there are certain international norms of freedom of speech, freedom of expression --

Q Then why won't you allow the photos --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, Helen. That's a different question. (Laughter.) And I think it's important for us to make sure that we let the Iranian people know that we are watching what's happening, that they are not alone in this process. Ultimately, though, what's going to be most important is what happens in Iran. And we've all been struck by the courage of people. And I mentioned this I think in a statement that I made a couple of days ago. Some of you who had been covering my campaigns know this is one of my favorite expressions, was Dr. King's expression that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." We have to believe that ultimately justice will prevail.

All right. Thank you, guys.

Wiesenthal Center seeks U.N. emergency session on Iran

LOS ANGELES (Press Release)--Officials of the Simon Wiesenthal Center are urging world leaders including the United States, the European Union, the Arab League and the Organization Islamic Conference to call for an immediate emergency session of the United Nations Security Council on the brutal suppression of the Iranian people following the sham elections in Iran.

“The brave citizens of Iran, have against all odds, sent a clarion call to the world that they want freedom and democracy but so far the world has turned their back as innocents have been killed on the streets of Tehran and other cities,” Rabbi Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, (founder and dean and associate dean respectively) of the Jewish Human Rights NGO said in a statement from Los Angeles .

“The UN cannot be open for business only to condemn Israel. It is unbelievable that to date, not a single country has called for UN agencies to act. Now is the time for world leaders to call for an emergency session of the UN Security Council to send the mullahs a clear message that any further violence against their own citizens will be met with swift sanctions,” the Wiesenthal Center statement concluded.

Read Chatham House analysis of the 2009 Iranian elections by clicking here

Preceding provided by Simon Wiesenthal Center


Reform Judaism unit applauds court decision on voting rights

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Press Release)– In response to the Wednesday, June 17, Supreme Court decision in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder, Mark Pelavin, Associate Director at the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, issued the following statement:

"Today’s Supreme Court decision in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder is a measured victory in the ongoing fight for equal rights. In a narrow ruling, the Supreme Court preserved Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires certain states and districts with a history of discrimination at the polls to get approval (or “pre-clearance”) from the federal government before making any changes in their election practices or procedures. Section 5 has long protected members of minority communities in states and districts across the country that have a history of discriminatory voting practices.

"While our nation has made many strides toward equality, discrimination at the polls remains a real and insidious problem across the country, threatening to the integrity and vibrancy of our deliberative government. It is that problem that Section 5 seeks, and will continue to seek, to eradicate. Congress included Section 5 in the 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act after hours of testimony made extraordinarily clear that discrimination remains a problem and that pre-clearance is essential to ensuring that minority communities do not encounter unnecessary barriers when attempting to vote.

"Today, the Supreme Court recognized Congress’s due diligence and affirmed the continued need for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. They kept this essential provision intact with a strong 8-1 majority. Voting discrimination remains a continued problem for our nation, and we are grateful that the Supreme Court preserved the core element of our democracy: full and equal voting rights for all people."

Preceding provided by the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism


Neo-Nazis 'adopt' highway, Missouri retalliates by naming it for Abraham Joshua Heschel

SPRINGFIELD, Missouri (WJC)—A neo-Nazi group has adopted a section of a highway in the US state of Missouri as part of a trash prevention scheme. State said it was unable to reject the group's application as membership could not be denied because of a group's political beliefs, but said the section of the highway would be renamed after Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who narrowly escaped the Nazis in the World War II and was a supporter of Martin Luther King.

The half-mile section of road was renamed "Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel Memorial Highway" as a reaction to the Springfield unit of the National Socialist Movement's move to clean up trash along the section of Missouri Highway 160, near the city limits of Springfield.

Heschel's daughter Susannah, a professor of Jewish history at Dartmouth College, criticized the move. She told the British newspaper 'Daily Telegraph': "I don't want Nazis stomping on a highway named for my father. What are they going to do then if they don't pick up the litter? The whole thing is disgusting. It may be an attempt to teach the neo-Nazis a lesson but I think it's an affront to my father's dignity to attach his name to a neo-Nazi highway."

Preceding provided by World Jewish Congress


Lithuania delays Shoah compensation to 2012

VILNA, Lithuania (WJC)—Lithuania is to delay payments from a compensation fund for Jewish property seized by the Nazis during World War II and kept by the state during the Soviet era, a government spokesman has said. "The government has decided that compensation payouts will begin in 2012, because of the economic crisis, and will continue for ten years," Ridas Jasulionis told the news agency AFP after a Cabinet meeting. Under rules drawn up in March, and yet to be approved by the country's parliament, Lithuania decided to start payouts in 2011 in an attempt to settle the issue of compensation for property seized from the Jewish community before the Holocaust. The government has been slashing public spending in the face of a crisis which is expected to see the economy shrink by 18.2 percent this year.

Under the compensation plan, the state pledged to pay out 113 million litas (US$ 46 million from a government fund until 2021. Lithuania's Jewish community, which the government asked for feedback, had in April said the fund's role was unclear and also complained that the package allowed only for fiscal compensation for confiscated property and not for the return of buildings. Jasulionis said the government was still looking for ways to have buildings returned in kind.

Preceding provided by World Jewish Congress

Federal judge rules religious groups can't be barred from
library meeting rooms

SAN FRANCISCO (Press Release)— A federal judge ruled Friday, June 19, that Contra Costa County officials can no longer prohibit a Christian ministry from accessing Antioch Branch Library public meeting rooms just because government employees consider its scheduled activities to be “religious services.”

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed suit against county officials in 2004 on behalf of the ministry, arguing that the library’s ban was unconstitutional.

“Christian groups shouldn’t be excluded and discriminated against for their beliefs,” said ADF Legal Counsel Tim Chandler. “Christians have a First Amendment right to control the content of their own meetings. The court correctly ruled that the government has no business interfering in what religious groups say.”

Go to the top of right column

After agreeing to allow Hattie Hopkins, the leader of Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries, to hold meetings at the Antioch Branch Library on two dates in 2004, Contra Costa Library officials told her toward the end of the first meeting that she could no longer hold meetings there because the county’s policy stated that “library meeting rooms shall not be used for religious purposes.” The library later narrowed the policy to only prohibit meetings it deemed to be “religious services.”

The court determined that allowing library employees to distinguish between what constitutes religious services versus other religious activities amounts to an excessive entanglement of government with religion: “Echoing the Supreme Court in Widmar, the Ninth Circuit determined that the distinction ‘is one that the government and the courts are not competent to make...,’” the district court wrote.

“The Supreme Court said almost 30 years ago that the government is not competent to distinguish between religious services and other types of religious speech. The court here is simply reaffirming that principle,” said Chandler. “This case reflects the true meaning of what Thomas Jefferson meant about a wall of separation between church and state: it is intended to protect the church from government interference.”

Preceding provided by Alliance Defene Fund

SHONDA FILE

SEC brings complaints against alleged Madoff helpers

WASHINGTON, D.C (Press Release) The Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday charged a New York-based broker-dealer and four individuals with securities fraud, alleging that they collectively raised billions of dollars from investors for Bernard L. Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the SEC charged Cohmad Securities Corporation as well as its chairman Maurice J. Cohn, chief operating officer Marcia B. Cohn, and registered representative Robert M. Jaffe for actively marketing investment opportunities with Madoff while knowingly or recklessly disregarding facts indicating that Madoff was operating a fraud. In a separate complaint filed in the same court, the SEC charged California-based investment adviser Stanley Chais, who oversaw three funds that invested all of their assets with Madoff. When the Ponzi scheme collapsed, Chais investors' accounts were valued at nearly $1 billion.

The SEC previously charged Madoff and Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BMIS) as well as their auditors with committing securities fraud through a Ponzi scheme perpetrated on advisory and brokerage customers of BMIS.

"Madoff cultivated an air of exclusivity by pretending that he was too successful to trouble himself with marketing to new investors," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "In fact, he needed a constant in-flow of funds to sustain his fraud, and used his secret control of Cohmad to obtain them."

James Clarkson, Acting Director of the SEC's New York Regional Office, added, "These Madoff solicitors collectively received several hundred million dollars in fees over the past few decades while Madoff ruined the finances of countless investors."

The Cohmad Complaint
The SEC's complaint against the Cohmad defendants alleges that while bringing investors to Madoff, they ignored and even participated in many suspicious practices that clearly indicated Madoff was engaged in fraud. For example, the SEC's complaint alleges that the Cohns and Cohmad filed false Forms BD and FOCUS reports that concealed Cohmad's primary business of bringing in investors for BMIS. This referral business comprised as much as 90 percent of Cohmad's revenue in some years, brought in more than 800 accounts, and billions of dollars into BMIS' advisory business, for which BMIS paid them more than $100 million.

The SEC's complaint also alleges that the compensation arrangement between BMIS and Cohmad indicated fraudulent conduct at BMIS. Cohmad was paid an annual percentage of the funds its representatives (except Jaffe) brought into BMIS offset by any withdrawals from those investor accounts. This compensation arrangement indicated to Cohmad and the Cohns that BMIS was not providing any real returns to investors. For example, where the client's principal investment had been $10,000, Cohmad stopped receiving fees if a client withdrew $15,000 from an account, even if under BMIS' management the account had purportedly grown to $100,000. In Cohmad's internal records, such an account was designated with a negative $5,000 number.

The SEC alleges that Jaffe also participated in Madoff's fraud by soliciting investors and bringing more than $1 billion into BMIS. The SEC's complaint alleges, among other things, that Madoff compensated Jaffe with outsized returns in Jaffe's personal accounts that he knew, or was reckless in not knowing, were manufactured by BMIS employees entering fictitious, backdated trades onto trade confirmations and account statements for his personal accounts at BMIS.

The Chais Complaint
The SEC's complaint alleges that Chais committed fraud by misrepresenting his role in managing the funds' assets and for distributing account statements that he should have known were false.

According to the SEC's complaint, for the last 40 years, Chais has held himself out as an investing wizard who managed hundreds of millions of dollars of investor funds in three partnerships, the Lambeth, Popham and Brighton Companies (the Funds). Chais made a number of misrepresentations over the years to the Funds' investors indicating that he formulated and executed the Funds' trading strategy. In reality, Chais was an unsophisticated investor who did nothing more than turn all of the Funds' assets over to Madoff, while charging the Funds more than $250 million in fees for his purported "services." Although Madoff managed all of the Funds' assets, many of the Funds' investors had never heard of Madoff before the collapse of his Ponzi scheme, and had not known that Chais invested with Madoff until Chais informed them after Madoff's arrest.

The SEC also alleges that Chais ignored red flags indicating that Madoff's reported returns were false. For example, Chais told Madoff that Chais did not want there to be any losses on any of the Funds' trades. Madoff complied with Chais's request, and from 1999 to 2008, despite reportedly executing thousands of trades on behalf of the Funds, Madoff did not report a loss on a single equities trade. Chais however, with the assistance of his accountant, prepared account statements for the Funds' investors based upon the Madoff statements, and continued to distribute them to the Funds' investors even though he should have known they were false.

According to the SEC's complaint, Chais also opened and exercised control over approximately 60 other accounts at Madoff's firm on behalf of his family members and related entities. Taking all of these accounts collectively, between 1995 and 2008, Chais and his family members and related entities withdrew more than $500 million more than they actually invested with Madoff.

Both SEC's complaints seek injunctions, financial penalties and court orders requiring Cohmad, the Cohns, Jaffe and Chais to disgorge their ill-gotten gains.

The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the Trustee for the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, and California Attorney General Jerry Brown. The SEC's investigation is continuing.

Preceding provided by the Securities and Exchange Commission

By Shoshana Bryen

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Following the latest North Korean missile test, the UN Security Council unanimously condemned Pyongyang. Furthermore, hoping to prevent additional North Korean exports of missile technology and missile-related equipment and parts, the Security Council resolution provided for "Member States to inspect and destroy all banned cargo to and from that country - on the high seas, at seaports and airports - if they have reasonable grounds to suspect a violation." Unfortunately, it did not give UN member states authority to board the ships. The United States and its allies are permitted only "to ask permission."

A suspected arms ship, the Kang Nam, has sailed from North Korea and is being monitored by U.S. and allied navies but, without permission to board, it appears that we will have to wait until the ship docks somewhere and hope that the host country will impound it. Originally thought to be headed for Singapore - not a friendly port for North Korea - it may now be headed for Myanmar, a place notably disinterested in what the UN or the rest of the international community wants.

In addition, Japanese intelligence suggests that North Korea will launch a missile toward Hawaii around the Fourth of July. They tried an Independence Day launch three years ago, but the missile failed seconds after liftoff. The assumption on all sides is that the North Koreans have made progress in missile technology since then, though American officials think it is unlikely that the missile will have enough range to actually hit the island. Nonetheless, said one military official, "past failure should not be considered a predictor," and defenses added to Hawaii include a ground-based mobile missile system and the X-Band seaborne radar.

"We do have some concerns if they were to launch a missile ... in the direction of Hawaii," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, but, "We are in a good position, should it become necessary, to protect Americans and American territory."

We wonder if he - and the residents of Hawaii - will think to thank President Reagan who said, as he announced the opening of the missile defense program, "We can't afford to think that we will never be threatened." Or thank President G.W. Bush for withdrawing from the outdated ABM Treaty and ordering the deployment of missile defenses in 2002, allowing us to confront non-Russian threats.

And we are concerned that President Obama is moving backward; missile defense is slated to take a $1.2 billion hit in the next budget. Out are $120 million to continue fielding 44 missile interceptors in Alaska; $500 million for long-range missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic; and the entire Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) Booster, Airborne Laser and Transformational Satellite Programs. The last three are technologies that will have an impact on future defense capabilities, necessary if our adversaries continue testing and improving their offensive capabilities.

We are fortunate that previous Presidents and Congresses pushed forward with missile defense in its early and unproven stages. In view of the demonstrated hostility of North Korea (and Iran) the current President and Congress should move forward on current and future technologies to keep pace as the threats proliferate.

* *

JINSA has frequently expressed concern that the United States is training Palestinian security forces without a clear picture of:

a) To whom the force will, ultimately, be loyal - as the Abu Mazen's Palestinian Authority (PA) government is overdue for elections and his popularity is in the low single digits; and

b) What the disposition of any future Palestinian government will be toward America's friend and ally Israel.

Frankly, we are concerned that Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton and his people may be giving Palestinians skills that will be turned against Israeli citizens. While the PA is currently working with the Government of Israel in a variety of ways, both Hamas and Fatah believe the creation of Israel was a mistake by the international community and restitution for the "European Holocaust" - a misconception to which President Obama's speech in Cairo gave credence. And remember that Abu Mazen is a Holocaust denier from way, way back.

Nevertheless, included in the FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations Bill is $109 million for training Palestinian Security Forces, and Congress is considering an administration request for an additional $100 million to continue and expand the training in 2010. There is no indication of what would happen to the troops, training or money if Hamas wins the next Palestinian election, or if Hamas doesn't wait for an election to take power, or if Hamas has infiltrated Fatah forces and/or if Palestinian security forces are "sharing" their training with others.

According to both Israeli and Palestinian sources, one reason the

Go to the top of right column

Fatah military force collapsed so quickly in the Hamas-Fatah civil war of 2007 was widespread Hamas infiltration into Fatah units. Gen. Dayton himself has said that the failure of his predecessors to properly vet recruits to the Palestinian Security Forces was the reason many of them used their U.S.-supplied training against Israel during the so-called "second intifada."

Keeping in mind his assurances that things are better now, last week, Palestinian security sources announced that they had arrested an officer from Fatah's National Guard unit caught training Hamas cells on the West Bank. We are skeptical of statements by the PA government, including its security forces, knowing that they often settle private scores under the guise of public policy. These are the forces Gen. Dayton has vetted and in whom he appears to have confidence, however. We are not reassured at any level.

And when we are not supplying money to Palestinian "soldiers," we are supplying UNRWA - which has employed members of Hamas and serves as a shill for Palestinian radicalism while imprisoning multiple generations of Palestinians in "refugee camps" in various Arab countries (In April, the U.S. supplied $311,500 to replace a clinic providing services to 19,000 Palestine refugees living in a camp in Syria.) In 2008, the U.S. government provided $185 million to UNRWA; in 2009 the figure thus far is $154.5 million - separate from the additional $900 million the U.S. is planning to provide to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza largely through the corrupt Fatah government in the West Bank and UNRWA.

Somewhere in that welter of money, the Obama Administration and Congress should be asking the fundamental question - what are the Palestinians doing with American taxpayer dollars that American taxpayers would actually want done? None of our largesse has produced the slightest indication on the part of Palestinian leadership - loosely defined - that there are civic, social, cultural and security requirements incumbent upon them when they take money we are increasingly hard-pressed to hand out.

"Change we can believe in" is clearly called for here.

Bryen is special projects director for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. (JINSA). Her column is sponsored by Waxie Sanitary Supply in memory of Morris Wax, longtime JINSA supporter and national board member.

Please click the ad above



Please click the ad above




Please click the ad above

Please click on this ad



Please click the ad above

Please click on this ad