Peter Huessy: National Security Threats vs. Defense Cuts/Bassam Tawil: The Terrorists Funded by the West

The Terrorists Funded by the West
Bassam Tawil/Gatestone Institute/November 17/15

The French and other Westerners need to wake up to the reality that the Palestinians who are condemning the terror attacks in Paris are the same ones who are praising terrorists who murder Jews, and naming streets and squares after them.
Once again, Abbas’s Western-funded loyalists are hoping to convince the world that there are “good” and “bad” terrorists. The good terrorists are those who murder Jews, while the bad terrorists are those who target French citizens. In fact, Abbas is doing his utmost to support the terrorists and their families.
For the war on terrorism to succeed, France and the rest of the Western countries also need to fight those who are harboring terrorists, glorifying murderers, and to stop financing the practitioners of terrorism who now regard it as a big, juicy cherished business.
Only a few hours before the terrorist attacks in Paris last week, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas appeared at a joint press conference in Ramallah together with the president of Cyprus, Nicos Anastasiades.
The press conference was held shortly after a Palestinian terrorist murdered two Israelis near the West Bank city of Hebron: Rabbi Yaakov Litman, 40, and his son, Netanel, 18. Five other family members — Litman’s wife, three daughters aged 5, 9, 11, and a 16-year-old son — suffered minor wounds. The Jewish family was driving to a pre-celebration of a fourth daughter’s wedding when the Palestinian terrorist opened fire at their vehicle.
At the press conference in Ramallah, however, President Abbas again chose to ignore the terrorist attack that was carried out by a Palestinian. Although Abbas knew that a Jewish man and his son had just been murdered, he refused to condemn the attack.
Since the current wave of Palestinian terrorism against Israelis began in early October, Abbas and the PA leadership have refused to condemn the murder of Israeli civilians and soldiers. Instead, President Abbas has repeatedly condemned Israel for killing the terrorists who carried out the attacks.
As President Abbas was speaking at the press conference in Ramallah, hundreds of Palestinians attended a rally in the city to commemorate Muhannad Halabi, the Palestinian terrorist who murdered two Jews in the Old City of Jerusalem on October 3: Aharon Banita, 21, and Nehemia Lavi, 41.

The rally in Ramallah could not have been held without permission from President Abbas’s security forces, who are armed and funded by the U.S., Europe and other Western countries. At the rally, Palestinians praised the terrorist as a “hero” and “martyr” and promised to follow in his path.
In yet another gesture to honor the terrorist, the Palestinian Authority decided to name a street after him in his village of Surda-Abu Kash, near Ramallah. By authorizing the move to name a street after the terrorist, President Abbas and the PA leadership are sending a message to other Palestinians that those who murder Jews will be honored and glorified by their people. The Palestinian Authority has also set up a monument for the “martyr” Halabi on the main road between Ramallah and the town of Bir Zeit. Less than three hours after Abbas appeared at the press conference in Ramallah with his Cypriot guest, he and his spokesmen issued statements condemning the terrorist attacks in Paris. Abbas’s condemnation of the Paris attacks shows that the Palestinian Authority believes that there are good and bad terrorists. In the eyes of Abbas and the PA, the terrorists are “heroes” and “martyrs” when they murder Jews. But the terrorists who murder French nationals are bad and deserve to be strongly condemned.

This is the same Palestinian Authority that has refused over the past five weeks to denounce the terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, including an 80-year-old woman, a father and his son, and a couple who were murdered in front of their four children. This position again exposes the hypocrisy and double talk of President Abbas and his Western-funded Palestinian Authority. By refusing to condemn the anti-Israeli terrorist attacks, President Abbas is giving his tacit approval for the murder of Jews. In fact, he is doing his utmost to support the terrorists and their families.Earlier this week, the Palestinian Authority announced that it would rebuild the homes of Hamas terrorists who murdered Eitam Henkin and his wife, Naama, in front of their children last month. The Israel Defense Forces demolished the homes as part of a policy to deter potential terrorists. The decision to rebuild the destroyed houses will only encourage terrorists to carry out more attacks against Jews because they know that President Abbas will take care of their families and even build them new homes.

Abbas’s Fatah faction, which has been praising and endorsing as heroes the Palestinian terrorists involved in attacks on Jews during the past weeks, is now trying to tell the French people that it is opposed to the terrorist attacks in Paris. Once again, Abbas’s Western-funded loyalists are hoping to convince the world that there are good and bad terrorists. The good terrorists are those who murder Jews, while the bad terrorists are those who target French citizens.The funniest episode in this show of Palestinian hypocrisy, however, can be found in the responses of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The two Islamist groups, whose ideology and aspirations are not particularly different from those of the Islamic State, were quick to publish statements “condemning” the terrorist attacks in Paris, claiming they are opposed to the killing of “innocent civilians.” Both Hamas and Islamic Jihad have long been involved in the business of targeting Israeli civilians. The two groups are responsible for the murders of hundreds of civilians during the past three decades. They have used all forms of terrorism against civilians, including the launching of rockets, shooting attacks and suicide bombings. Still, the two Palestinian groups have had the cheek to “condemn” the brutal killings of civilians in Paris.

Less than 24 hours before condemning the Paris attacks, Hamas and Islamic Jihad issued separate statements applauding the “heroic” shooting attacks that killed the Jewish father and his son near Hebron. Like President Abbas, the two terror groups draw a distinction between “good” terrorists who murder Jews and “bad” ones who target French civilians. The story of Palestinian hypocrisy and double standards is not new. In fact, it is as old as the 67-year-old Israeli-Arab conflict. Unfortunately, countries such as France avoid confronting Palestinian leaders about their lies and hypocritical policies. The French and other Westerners need to wake up to the reality that the Palestinians who are condemning the terror attacks in Paris are the same ones who are praising terrorists who murder Jews and naming streets and squares after them.The French government should have the courage to dismiss the Palestinian “condemnations” publicly, and send a warning to President Abbas, Hamas and Islamic Jihad to stop supporting and glorifying Muslim terrorists not only in Paris, but also those who live amongst them in Ramallah and the Gaza Strip.

Spot the difference…
Left: Emergency workers carry the dead body of a victim who was murdered by Islamist terrorists, who shot and stabbed civilians on a Jerusalem bus last month. Right: Medics carry a victim who was wounded by Islamist terrorists, who shot civilians at a Paris theater last week. For the war on terrorism to succeed, France and the rest of the Western countries also need to fight those who are harboring terrorists, glorifying murderers, and to stop financing the practitioners of terrorism who now regard it as a big, cherished business.
*Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6889/terrorists-funded-by-west

National Security Threats vs. Defense Cuts
Peter Huessy/Gatestone Institute/November 17/15
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6895/defense-cuts-security-threats

The nation’s media, who seem to assume that Americans are weary of war, rather than that they are desperately frustrated at being infantilized and lied to, rarely discuss what defense programs need more investment. If anything, they discuss what defense programs should be killed.
Defense spending grew from $265 billion in 1996 to $300 billion in 2000, a 13% increase, equivalent to a $76 billion annual increase today. And the plan to balance the budget reached its goal in 1997. Why can America not do that again? Reform tax policy. Restore a sound defense budget plan.
“You think defending this nation is expensive; try not defending it.” — Senator Ted Cruz, Nov. 10, 2015.
Especially as ISIS, Iran and others openly threaten the United States, it seems increasingly urgent for this administration and the next to determine the level of defense spending America should support.
A new study by the American Enterprise Institute, (AEI), authored primarily by defense experts Tom Donnelly and Mackenzie Eaglen initially supports using as a minimum baseline the defense five year plan proposed in 2012, by then Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates.
Unfortunately, too often in Washington a discussion of defense spending frequently defaults into arguments over whether major tax rate increases must be part of the bargain. This failure is in part due to policy proposals to increase defense spending often being linked to with other proposals — to cut tax rates, reform entitlements and balance the budget. Combined, these proposals are often described as unworkable and radical, and are thus easily dismissed.

A debate over how much to “tax the rich” lends itself to easy demagoguery. And that attracts politicians and their supporters to call for the redistribution of income. In short, if everything in the drive-by media newsroom can default to the progressive, Marxist narrative, it will.
In addition, the nation’s media, who seem to assume that Americans are weary of war, rather than that they are desperately frustrated at being infantilized and lied to, rarely discuss what defense programs need more investment. If anything, they discuss what defense programs should be reduced or killed. For example, Keith Payne, the President of the National Institute of Public Policy in Fairfax, Virginia and a former top DOD official, told a conference on September 17, 2015 that during the past few years, media stories advocating cutting nuclear deterrent programs outnumbered those pushing for modernization by more than 200 to 1.

Retired Air Force Lieutenant General David Deptula, Dean of the Air Force Association’s (AFA) Mitchell Institute and formerly the first Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, explained at an AFA conference on bomber policy on November 10, that the U.S. needs to have a discussion of “first principals” — asking what defense of the country one should have, to accomplish what ends. Then one can determine what it would cost.[1] The first task in the Constitution is “to provide for the common defense.” To be sure, it is also necessary to have an intelligent discussion on how to pay for such a defense. That raises the further question of how best to generate the economic growth and jobs needed to raise the revenues needed to pay for these defense bills. If the U.S. is serious about balancing the federal budget in the next decade, as the new Speaker of the House, Paul D. Ryan, supports, that debate should be held soon. The debate should be about what smart tax, regulatory and spending policies would yield highest levels of revenue. But does the U.S. really need to increase tax rates more on “the rich,” to meet its defense obligations?

Already, the current tax system is extraordinarily progressive. For example, while the top 1% earned 18.9% of national income they paid an astounding 37.4% of all federal taxes, while the top 5% earned 33.8% of national income but paid 59.1% of all federal taxes. By contrast, the bottom half of Americans received 11.7% of national income yet paid only 2.4% of federal taxes. Few Americans, however, seem to know that every year — with no change in Federal tax rates — the U.S. government dramatically increases its “tax take” from the U.S. economy.

Despite the current economic recovery being the slowest in the post World War II era, revenue collected by the U.S. in 2014-2015 was still $230 billion higher than the year before.[2]
Obviously, a strong economy at near full employment would generate record levels of revenue, even when tax rates are lower (such as a 35% top tax rate) than in other years.[3]
The media and political discussion should include what to do with annual revenue increases that, even now in a slow-growth economy, are climbing each year by nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars.
For defense, if one accepts the recommendation of AEI that a $611 billion defense budget for FY2016 be adopted, as proposed by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2012, it would boost the current administration’s February 2015 defense request of $585 billion by $26 billion.

It appears, in fact, that Congress and the administration have finally agreed on a new defense spending level of $607 billion, which does bring the U.S. significantly closer to the initial goal of $611 billion proposed by AEI’s Donnelly and Eaglen. This new annual increase in defense spending of about $60 billion above the previous budget caps is welcome, but amounts to the appropriation for more defense spending of only about 25% of the annual increase in federal revenue. In short, it does not appear “radical” at all to devote some of those resources for U.S. national security, especially at this time.
It also does not seem “radical” to question the debates about taxing the rich, which are usually accompanied by arguments about who pays what share of federal revenue, and whether “the rich” make “too much” money.

Recent history has some lessons for the U.S. In 1996, the U.S. cut capital gains tax rates; lowered taxes on inheritances; expanded individual retirement accounts and increased the child tax credit. Domestic non-defense spending was curtailed. Nevertheless, defense spending grew from $265 billion in 1996 to $300 billion in 2000, a 13% increase, equivalent to a $76 billion annual increase today. And the plan to balance the budget reached its goal in 1997. Why can America not do that again? Reform tax policy. Take people from welfare to work. Restore a sound defense budget plan. And balance the budget.
As said by U.S. presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz, “You think defending this nation is expensive; try not defending it.” How radical is that?

[1] Lt Gen David Deptula, remarks at the AFA November 10, 2015 “What’s Next for the Long-Range Strike Bomber?”
[2] The budget, tax and GDP numbers are from Christopher Chantrill’s website. This site provides current and historical budget, tax and GDP data far superior in format and detail than any other source, government or private. You can also find the revenue numbers from the Treasury tables posted on the White House website.
[3] These revenue figures are for taxes collected from all tax rate levels. The top tax rates are for reference purposes and illustrate the key to greater revenue is greater economic growth.