Gaza War Diary 1 Sun-Mon. Jan. 22-23, 2017 1 Day 1234-1235 3am
Dear Family & Friends
Moshe Dann reveals the truth about how & why Jewish Land in Israel is ‘always’ declared ‘private Pal land’ by the Israeli Supreme Court – they are fed misinformation by the lower court which rules based on Jordanian Law (or Ottoman or British law) – never by Jewish Law. #1
I never understood why the ongoing ‘investigation’ of PM Netanyahu is broadcast every night by TV ‘exposés, regarding Yediot Ahronot & Israel HaYom. The continual ‘shmear’ of our PM, undermines Israel’s government while spreading ‘bad & fake news’. When people continually read this “fake news”, they begin to believe it & distrust the government & PM. Caroline Glick, as usual, dissects. explains & makes clear WHY this is being done. It’s political power not journalistic forensic investigation for ‘truth’. #3 All the very best, Gail/Geula/Savta/Savta Raba x 2/Mom Our Website: WinstonIsraelInsight.org
7.Inaugural Tears Of Joy By Ruthie Blum
1.The IDF’s Judicial Empire In Judea & Samaria By Moshe Dann
JPost.com 1/21/17 21:52
A Palestinian Beduin village near Jericho. Disputes over land in the West Bank often end up decided by a military-run administration.. (photo credit:REUTERS)
In response to calls from the international community and anti-Israel organizations to “end the occupation,” referring to the presence of Jews in Area C of Judea & Samaria, aka “the settlers,” supporters of Israel respond: “We are not occupying someone else’s land; this land belongs to Israel & the Jewish people by law & by history.”
But the IDF’s judicial system in Area C, aka “the occupied territories,” which represents the state, composed of the Military Advocate General (MAG), the IDF Prosecutor’s Office & the Civil Administration takes a position in line with Israel’s critics & the international community. As MAG’s website states, Area C, in which all settlements are located, is “subject to belligerent occupation,” which means “the occupation of territory belonging to another country.”
According to this law, territory gained as a result of a war, any war, including a defensive one, is not legitimate. It implies that “the sovereignty of the occupied territory is not vested in the occupying power and is essentially provisional” but it does not assign sovereignty to any country.
Israel’s High Court also takes the position that Israel is in “belligerent occupation” of the “occupied territories.” Although it maintains the status of the territories is unclear, it has never ruled on the question. This issue is examined by Prof. David Kretzmer, in his study, “The law of belligerent occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel” (International Review of the Red Cross, 2012).
To whom, then, does Judea and Samaria belong? According to MAG, which applies Jordanian law, it seems to be Jordan. This is strange since Jordan invaded Judea & Samaria in 1948 as part of genocidal war against the newly established state, committed war crimes & established an illegal & brutal regime – not recognized by the international community. It then attacked Israel in 1967 & was defeated in the Six Day War. Moreover, Jordan relinquished all claims to the area 30 years ago. Yet, MAG decided that Jordanian law prevails in Area C, as it does in the Palestinian Authority-controlled areas. MAG’s decisions not only deny the rights of the Jewish people to their homeland, they seem to be contrary to what most of the Israeli government believes.
In addition, the application of Jordanian law contravenes Israeli administrative law as well as Ottoman land law. The problem is that the Israeli government has never clearly stated its position.
In the absence of a government decision to extend Israeli law to Area C, therefore, the “rule of law” is whatever MAG & the High Court decide. MAG has sole & exclusive power & jurisdiction. It dictates what rules apply in disputes over land ownership. Its decisions are absolute, non-transparent & cannot be challenged; it reports only to the defense minister. Since it represents “the state”, its decisions are accepted as law by the High Court. When cases involving land disputes are brought to the High Court, its decisions cannot be appealed since it the court of last resort.
Ironically, even bizarrely, the IDF’s legal system in Area C, the High Court & thus the Israeli government are legitimizing the claim that Israel is occupying Palestinian territory, and that Israelis/Jews are stealing private Palestinian land. When cases are brought against Jewish farmers, homeowners, or even IDF security measures, MAG provides misinformation to the High Court, which orders the destruction of Jewish property & changes in security infrastructure.
MAG’s decisions have led directly & indirectly to the murder of Israeli Jews. For example, the community of Itamar complained that the fence protecting it was weak & inadequate. MAG refused to allow repairs & reinforcement because it decided – without proof – that the fence was built on “Palestinian-owned” land. As a result, Arab terrorists were able to infiltrate the community time after time. Three teenagers playing basketball were murdered in 2002; 5 members of the Shabo family were murdered that same year; Shlomo Miller, Itamar’s security officer, was killed in 2004; & 5 members of the Fogel family were murdered, including an infant in 2011.
A year ago, an Arab terrorist breached a flimsy perimeter fence around Kiryat Arba, near Hebron & stabbed to death Hallel-Yaffa Ariel, an Israeli teenage girl, in her bedroom.
The recent wave of Arab Palestinian arson attacks in places such as Neveh Tzuf, could have been contained if MAG had allowed Jewish communities to build protective infrastructure. MAG ignored the vulnerability of these communities.
In a number of places in Judea & Samaria, IDF military facilities were turned over to local Arabs by order of the IDF commander. In several instances, Women in Green organized protests & were able to stop or limit such transfers, for example at Shdema, between Efrat & Tekoa in Gush Etzion. MAG opposed their efforts, but today it is a small IDF base.
Instead of protecting Jews, MAG seeks to destroy Jewish property & Jewish communities, such as Amona parts of Ofra, while promoting fraudulent & non-existent Arab land claims. MAG squanders millions on destroying Jewish property, while allowing Arabs & Beduin to take over state-owned land, aided by the European Union & other anti-Israel organizations. The IDF’s legal system in Judea & Samaria is directed by high-ranking officers who oppose the settlement movement.
According to Israel National News, for example, a few weeks ago, Brig. Gen. (ret) Dov Tzedakah, “was dismissed from his position as the head of the IDF Civil Administration’s negotiations with the Bedouin in Judea & Samaria following allegations that he is a member of an extreme-leftist organization funded by the European Union (EU).” Except for Israel National News (Arutz7), this story was not reported by the media. Another officer has ties to left wing NGOs, according to news reports. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
Israel proudly proclaims that it is “the only democracy in the Middle East.” The IDF’s biased judicial establishment in Area C of Judea & Samaria brings that claim into question. Israel cannot claim to be a democracy as long as nearly a half-million of its citizens are under the IDF’s anti-settlement judicial dictatorship.
We are being stabbed in the back by our own. We need to “drain this swamp.”
2.Deputy FM Tzipi Hotovely: This term will decide Judea & Samaria’s fate She speaks about US President Trump’s inauguration and the proposed law to apply Israeli sovereignty to Ma’ale Adumim. By Hezki Baruch 1/21/17
Tzipi Hotovely – Flash 90
Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) spoke on Saturday night about US President Donald Trump’s move to the White House.
“It’s important to have a friend in the White House, who cares about Israel’s interests,” Hotovely told Channel 10. “I believe he will help America turn over a new leaf, and we will see significant changes in many areas.
“We’ll be very happy to have David Friedman as Israel Ambassador. He and the Trump administration are very pro-Jewish settlement in Judea & Samaria.
“We have a presidential promise that Trump will move the US Embassy. I hope he’ll keep his word despite the enormous pressure from the Arab world. I am sure this will be an act of leadership & bravery, & we will obviously stand behind Trump when he does it.
“This term will decide the fate of Judea & Samaria. We need to work together with the new US administration,” she concluded.
3.Netanyahu’s Shameless Opponents By Caroline B. Glick
Channel 2 has opened its primetime news broadcasts nearly every night this past week with selected minutes from their recorded talks.
Copies of ‘Israel Hayom’ & ‘Yediot Aharonot’ are displayed in Ashkelon l. (photo credit:Reuters)
Over the past week, Israel was subjected to the diplomatic equivalent of a lynch mob in Paris. It received unexpected assistance from Britain, which twice in two days departed from its traditional anti-Israel stance & blocked the Paris conference’s anti-Israel declaration from being adopted as the official position of the European Union.
Also over the past week, outgoing US President Barack Obama, outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry & outgoing UN Ambassador Samantha Power used their final appearances in office to blast Israel.
On the other hand, President-elect Donald Trump & his team played a key role in bringing about Britain’s change of heart toward Israel.
While these events have been widely covered by the foreign media, they have barely been mentioned in the Hebrew broadcast media, from which the majority of Israelis receive their news.
Instead, led by Channel 2 with its monopoly ratings share, the local media spent the past week covering almost nothing but the criminal probes being carried out against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Netanyahu is the subject of two probes. The first, which police investigators dubbed Affair 1000, involves allegations that Netanyahu improperly received gifts from his friends.
That probe seems to be withering on the vine. Consequently, over the past week, most of the media’s attention has been focused on what the police call Affair 2000.
Affair 2000 involves conversations Netanyahu conducted two years ago with Israel’s most powerful media mogul & Netanyahu’s public nemesis, Yediot Aharonot chairman Arnon Mozes. Mozes is Netanyahu’s bitter foe because for the past 20 years, Yediot’s coverage of Netanyahu has been virulently hostile.
Affair 2000 itself, the media coverage it has garnered and the way the police are conducting their probe all raise deeply troubling questions about key institutions that are supposed to safeguard Israeli democracy and our rule of law.
To understand the affair & concerns it raises, Affair 2000 must be placed in proper context.
In November 2014, the government fell & the Knesset voted to go to elections barely a year after the previous elections were held.
Whereas generally a government falls because the opposition gains the votes to bring it down in a no-confidence vote, in 2014, Netanyahu caused his own government to fall and precipitated early elections.
Netanyahu took the drastic step, which placed his own future in jeopardy, because the heads of three parties that were members of his governing coalition colluded against him in a host of common actions that made governing impossible.
The straw that broke Netanyahu’s back was when the three rebellious ministers – then-justice minister Tzipi Livni, then-Treasury minister Yair Lapid and then-foreign minister Avigdor Liberman – decided to support the passage of the draft “Israel Hayom law.”
The bill, which was sponsored by Labor MK Eitan Cabel, would have outlawed the free distribution of national newspapers. It was dubbed the Israel Hayom law, because the paper founded in 2007 & owned by Netanyahu’s supporter US casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, is free. The goal of the draft legislation was to shut down Israel Hayom. Thanks to Livni, Lapid and Liberman, the bill passed its first reading in the Knesset with a vote of 43 in favor & 23 opposed.
Netanyahu vociferously opposed the bill. He and his Likud party voted against it.
With that context in mind, we can return to Affair 2000.
Netanyahu’s conversations with Mozes took place around the 2015 elections. Fearing Mozes intended to extort him, on the advice of his personal attorney, Netanyahu surreptitiously recorded the discussions.
The police discovered his recordings in the course of a separate probe of Netanyahu’s former adviser who had a copy of the recorded conversations on his mobile phone.
Channel 2 has opened its primetime news broadcasts nearly every night this past week with selected minutes from their recorded talks.
Netanyahu’s conversations with Mozes related to the Israel Hayom draft law. From Channel 2’s excerpts, we learned that Mozes offered Netanyahu to improve Yediot’s treatment of the premier if Netanyahu would convince Adelson to substantially curtail Israel Hayom’s distribution & if Netanyahu would agree to limit government advertisements that run in the daily paper.
Mozes told Netanyahu that if the premier accepted his offer, he would see to it that Netanyahu remained in power for as long as he wished.
The flipside, although unstated – at least in Channel 2’s excerpts – was clear. If Netanyahu rejected Mozes’s offer, Yediot would continue its campaign to bring down Netanyahu.
The end of their discussions is public knowledge.
Netanyahu brought down his own government & disbanded the Knesset rather than allow the legislative process to continue. His 2015 campaign centered on Netanyahu’s opposition to Mozes & Yediot.
The opposition’s campaign against Netanyahu on the other hand, was based largely on negative articles related to Netanyahu & his family that ran daily in Yediot.
In other words, Netanyahu rejected Mozes’s offers & the two went to war.
Although Yediot supports the Left and Israel Hayom supports Netanyahu, Mozes’s opposition to Israel Hayom wasn’t ideological.
His willingness to skew his paper’s coverage in favor of Netanyahu showed that Mozes’s attempt to destroy Israel Hayom stemmed solely from financial considerations.
In 2006, Yediot had a monopoly share of the print media market on weekends and dominated the weekday editions as well. Its closest competitor, Ma’ariv, had half the sales that Yediot had.
Israel Hayom ended Yediot’s monopoly & lowered its advertising revenues. So if Israel Hayom were to close, the most direct & significant beneficiary would be Yediot Aharonot. Everyone knew this.
As justice minister, Livni chaired the Ministerial Committee on Legislation that controls in large part which bills will be brought before the Knesset. Ahead of the committee’s discussion of the Israel Hayom bill, then-attorney general Yehuda Weinstein issued a legal opinion which reasonably argued that the bill was unconstitutional because its aim was to specifically target one business for bankruptcy, because it harmed consumers & the economy & because it sought to undermine the free press.
During the 2015 campaign, Livni acknowledged that she spoke with Mozes about the bill before it was discussed in her committee. Mozes, she said, also furnished her with a legal opinion authored by his private attorneys. Predictably, that opinion argued the bill was constitutional, was not prejudicial and would be great for the economy.
Livni rejected Weinstein’s opinion and enabled the bill to go forward. Yediot supported her lavishly during the election campaign.
AFFAIR 2000 is troubling first and foremost because of what is not being investigated.
Netanyahu, who refused to make a deal with Mozes, is being investigated as a criminal suspect for speaking to him.
Livni, who also spoke to Mozes, as well as Liberman, Lapid and 40 other members of Knesset who may have spoken with him, and who voted in favor of the bill that Mozes worked so hard to pass into law, are not being investigated.
How is it possible that police investigators aren’t interested in finding out if Mozes made any offers that were accepted? Why aren’t investigators checking whether there were changes in the volume of positive coverage that Livni, Lapid, Liberman and their colleagues received after they announced their support for his bill?
This brings us back to the media. Night after night, television viewers have been subjected to saturation coverage of Affair 2000 that distorts more than it reveals. Netanyahu is presented as a corrupt politician willing to destroy a newspaper to advance his own career even though he did nothing of the sort.
The 43 MKs who actually did something to destroy the paper are given a pass.
The distorted reports have clearly had an impact.
In a poll conducted by Channel 2 to check effectiveness of its reporting, a majority of Israelis said they believe Netanyahu behaved dishonestly in relation to his conversations with Mozes.
At least as far as Channel 2 is concerned, the way to correct the problems Affair 2000 exposed is obvious.
Just as Israel Hayom broke Yediot’s market monopoly so Channel 2’s broadcast monopoly must end.
The government must deregulate the broadcast media. It needs to sell broadcast licenses to anyone who has the funds to purchase one.
The problem with police investigators is unfortunately more difficult to contend with. According to independent investigative journalist Yoav Yitzhak, Netanyahu decided not to turn his recordings of Mozes over to the police despite the fact that they contained apparent evidence of extortion, or at a minimum the offer of a bribe, because he doesn’t trust police investigators.
Yitzhak reported on his website that Netanyahu told his close associates this week that he found out that the police’s senior investigators, Asst.-Chiefs Manny Yitzhaki & Ronny Ritman, had close relationships with hostile journalists from Channel 10, Haaretz and Yediot. He was concerned that if he brought them the evidence he had gathered against Mozes, the investigators would use the evidence as a means to open new criminal investigations against Netanyahu with the aim of destroying him politically.
The Prime Minister’s Office has not denied Yitzhak’s report. Assuming it accurately reflects Netanyahu’s thinking, it means that the PM believes the police are corrupt & politically motivated.
Certainly the police investigators’ selective investigation of Netanyahu since Affair 2000 broke seems to back up his feelings.
Police Commissioner Insp.-Gen. Roni Alsheich promised this week that the probes of Netanyahu will be concluded shortly. But even if Netanyahu is cleared of suspicion, the concerns raised by Affair 2000 will linger and grow if not dealt with.
Israel is on the precipice of a major shift in its international position. Trump’s rise, along with the weakening of the EU with Britain’s Brexit vote, means that Israel faces opportunities it hasn’t enjoyed in 50 years.
The concerted effort by the media with the apparent collusion of the police to undermine & overthrow Netanyahu at the dawn of this new era isn’t merely unjust. It is anti-Zionist, anti-democratic & dangerous for the future of the state.
Israel’s Education Minister congratulates US President Trump on inauguration, responds to Israeli PM’s Saturday night Facebook post.
Education Minister Naftali Bennett – Reuters
Education Minister Naftali Bennett (Jewish Home) congratulated US President Donald Trump on his inauguration & move to the White House.
“We’ve entered a new era,” Bennett wrote on Twitter. “For the first time in fifty years, our Prime Minister has a choice whether to create a Palestinian state or to apply israeli sovereignty in Judea & Samaria.
“If we choose to create a Palestinian state, we will regret our choice for generations to come. We will work to apply Israeli sovereignty.”
Responding to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s Facebook post, in which Netanyahu said Iranian civilians are our friends, Bennett said, “Iran is an important topic, but preventing a second Iran in the heart of Judea & Samaria is no less important.
“We must not allow the ‘Iran threat’ to be used an excuse to miss an historical opportunity to prevent Palestine from developing on Israel’s Route 6.”
Route 6 is one of Israel’s main north-south highways, crossing much of the country.
00:00 | 01:38
“I will fight for you with every breath in my body – and I will never, ever let you down,” Trump said in his inauguration speech. “We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.
“We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.
“We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones – and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth,” he promised.
‘MUCH HAS transpired during Barack Obama’s two terms in office, all of it colossally bad. This was to be expected, given the success of his administration in carrying out its goal to unravel the flawed fabric of an otherwise great nation and turn it into a bowl of Jell-O.’ (photo credit:Reuters)
I watched president Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration on TV in Israel, alternating between Hebrewand English-speaking channels so as not to miss any detail or piece of commentary.
The build-up to the momentous event had been dramatic. Until late in the race, it appeared that Hillary Clinton was going to strut away with the Democratic nomination and beat Republican candidate John McCain with one hand tied behind her back.
Suddenly, as if out of nowhere, an unknown senator from Illinois emerged and proceeded to crush her vision of reentering the White House as its master, not simply first lady.
Clinton was understandably livid to see the effect Obama had on her party and its supporters. Not only was he everything she was not – tall, dark, handsome and charismatic – he also outranked her in minority status. She may have had hopes of becoming the first woman to occupy the Oval Office. But he was black.
In addition, though Clinton had a political record that could be critiqued – and a spouse whose blatant infidelities led to his impeachment, but not to divorce – Obama possessed a picture-perfect nuclear family and no visible blemishes on his enigmatic past.
Both had been Alinskyites in their youth, but Clinton had long since sold her radicalism to the highest bidder, exchanging ideology for financial opportunism and lust for power. Obama, on the other hand – considerably younger than his rival – was still a believer.
For Clinton, America’s greatness and abundance were there for exploitation. Obama viewed the country and its institutions as a lump of unappealing clay he had been anointed to pummel and mold in his image. His motto of “hope and change” disguised this agenda, but it invigorated a disgruntled public hungry for Utopia.
Neither Clinton nor McCain stood a chance.
When Obama was sworn in – his hand on the bible whose passages he had spent 20 years hearing in sermons preached by his anti-American, anti-white and antisemitic pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright – I longed to join in the festivities.
Indeed, it was a truly historic occasion for a country in which segregation was still practiced in my lifetime to be electing a black president. As cameras zoomed in on Oprah Winfrey weeping tears of joy, I wanted to join her. I wished to be cheering, rather than mourning what I anticipated was going to be a concerted effort to destroy the great United States from within and appease its external enemies to the point of endangering Israel.
8 years have passed since that fateful day, which marked the beginning of a very unhappy period in the country of my birth & for the Jewish state in which I have resided since the summer following Jimmy Carter’s inauguration. Much has transpired during Obama’s 2 terms in office, all of it colossally bad. This was to be expected, given the success of his administration in carrying out its goal to unravel the flawed fabric of an otherwise great nation & turn it into a bowl of Jell-O.
As soon as Obama’s first term ended, Clinton began to prepare to take what she considered to be her rightful place at the helm. This time around, nothing was going to stop her. She was even promised by the party that there would be no more surprises.
Lo and behold, two were in store. The first was Bernie Sanders, an old-style Jewish socialist who miraculously gave her a run for her money in the primaries.
The second was Donald Trump.
Like Obama, Trump – a real estate magnate and reality show host, world famous for everything but his politics – suddenly appeared on the scene, as if out of nowhere. And, after knocking out 16 Republican opponents, he proceeded to clobber Clinton.
Trump stomped onto the literal & figurative stage with such an enormous bang that not a single person believed for a second he was a serious contender for the job of commander-in-chief.
But his message, despite being distasteful to many, was no less gripping than Obama’s had been. What Trump announced was that he was going to “make America great again.”
The slogan was not as much of a winner, however, as the brash, often offensive man who was shouting it from the rooftops, enthralling crowds by reminding them that the secret of America’s success has always been its people. He told them to recall that, when unfettered by overly intrusive government –& released from the tyranny of mind-control born of political correctness on steroids – Americans flourish.
He also announced the bullying of America, from within & without, would not be tolerated.
Trump was not inventing the wheel, he was merely giving it a hefty whirl to show that even eight years of rust can be removed with a little elbow grease. He was not selling a fantasy, he was invoking a forgotten reality. No wonder it worked.
What he does with his victory remains to be seen, but so far, the team he has assembled looks promising.
When I turned on the TV in Israel to watch his swearing-in ceremony on Friday, even the mass demonstrations against the legitimacy of his presidency did not prevent me from shedding a tear of celebration, as I had so yearned to do with Oprah in 2009.
The writer is the managing editor of The Algemeiner.
IsraPundit by Ted Belman January 16, 2017
Everyone is familiar will Hillel’s quote, loosely translated, “If I am not for myself, who am I? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?”
I have always understood this to mean that an individual must make the case for his particular before making the case for the other. Particularism before universalism. Neither should be to the exclusion of the other, but the former, according to Hillel, comes first. One might add that it is only natural to fight for yourself before fighting for others. The twentieth century witnessed within the Jewish community a flight from the Jewish particular in favour of the universal. As the Jews came out of the ghetto, they shed religion for secularism. They became Communists in Russia, socialists in Europe and liberal Democrats in America.
The Jewish Right wishes to follow Hillel’s dictum by emphasizing the Jewish particular first and then addressing the “other”. Thus, it chooses a Jewish Israel even if it offends the Western notion of democracy. On the other hand, the Jewish Left wishes to do the opposite. It stresses the rights of the other, particularly the “Palestinians”, at the expense of Jewish rights. A case in point is the fence decision by the Israel’s High Court of Justice. The Jewish Right wants Israel to be a Jewish state whereas the Left argues that Israel should be a state like other states or of all its citizens. Binyamin Netanyahu got it right when he said, “Israel is the state of the Jews & not of its citizens.”
In my recent article “It pays to be Jewish”, I argued that Israel, to be a Jewish state, must give pre-eminence to Jewish Civil Law, which flows from the Torah. I implied that freedom of speech should not protect anti-Israel incitement & that persons not loyal to Israel as a Jewish state should have their citizenship revoked & should not be allowed a Knesset seat.
This raised howls of racism from some. But to deny your enemies certain rights is not racism, because it is not based on physical characteristics. It is self-defense, because it is based on their stated intention to destroy you.
Paul Eidelberg, in his important book Jewish Statesmanship, stands against a loyalty oath as the solution: “It is the height of impudence, of conceit & even of stupidity to grant equal political rights to Arabs in the expectation that they will renounce their religion & 1,300 year old civilization for a ballot box.
“[…]From the Torah’s perspective, a people is not a random or amorphous aggregation of individuals. The essence of peoplehood is particularism & not universalism, which is not to say that particularism precludes universal ideas & ideals such as ethical monotheism. A living people must have a revered past & a profound sense of collective purpose, embodied in national laws & literature & vivified by national holidays & customs. Such a people will experience similar joys & harbour similar thoughts conducive to friendship. They will feel responsible for each other & respond in righteous indignation to assaults on their national honour. Therein is the heart & soul of a people & the reason why their government will not bestow citizenship on foreign elements whose goals or way of life clashes with their own.”
Thus, the question becomes, are the citizens of a country entitled to preserve their ethnic or religious makeup or their culture? Who is to decide? The Western model says “no”. Multiculturalism reigns supreme, as does relativism. No one’s values are better than the values of others. Everything & everybody is to be tolerated, even those who don’t tolerate you. It is easy to see that this is the ultimate destination of universalism. It seeks to render valueless the particular, whether religious or national. It is paradoxical that the greatest opposition to universalism comes from Muslims, who are the largest intended beneficiary.
While the Left continually excoriates Israel for falling below a standard imposed by them on Israel alone, it totally ignores the reality of the Muslim world. You would think that since Muslims are most in conflict with their tolerant world view that they should focus on castigating & reforming them. But no, they pick on Israel instead. Could this be anti-Semitism?
When Jews agonize over the survival of the Jewish people, invariably one asks, “Survive as what?” Obviously, if you give up what makes you Jewish, you, as a Jew, are not surviving. The resistance to assimilation is also often referred to as racism, but it isn’t. It denotes love of self. This is healthy. It is the self-hatred of the Jewish Left who strive to deny the Jewish particular that is to be rejected, or at least recognized for what it is.
The same goes for Israel. If Israel would become a bi-national state, it would die as a Jewish state. Even the name Israel could be changed. The Arab Israelis would argue for the Law of Return to apply to them, also. And so on. It will also die as a Jewish state if it doesn’t take steps to preserve its Jewish character. At a minimum, these should include restoring Jewish Civil Law as the supreme law of the land & creating a constitution that permits only Jews to determine its national purpose, character & defense.
I submit that a nation has not only the inherent right of self defense when its national existence is threatened, but also when its cultural essence is at risk. Israel’s enemies deny it both rights. To assert these rights is not racism. Every nation has the right to determine who can emigrate, who can become citizens and what values in its society are inviolable.
Israel even more so. The Torah defines the People of Israel (Am Yisroel) & the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisroel) & the connection between them & G-d. The People of Israel have a collective responsibility & a mission & a birthright (Israel). Whether or not you believe in G-d, the fact remains that this is the essence of Judaism. This essence has survived for over three thousand years & should continue to survive.
Israel has not only the right to defend this culture, but the duty to do so.
9.Europe’s Jihad against Israel by Salim Mansur GATESTONE
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9799/europe-jihad-israel January 20, 2017 at 5:30 am
UN Security Council Resolution 2334, adopted as a result of the United States abstention, on the instructions of outgoing President Barack Obama, confirmed the historic bigotry against Jews and Israel entrenched within the United Nations, just as it was within its predecessor, the League of Nations. As previously indicated, Arab & Muslim states could not move a single anti-Israel resolution in the Security Council without the complicity of the Western powers, representing the historically Christian nations.
The collusion of the Western powers & the Islamic countries against Jews & Israel is now ostentatious, without any subterfuge. Resolution 2334 was as sickening a surrender to the Arab-Muslim Jihad in the name of “peace” as was the surrender of UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to the Adolf Hitler at Munich in September 1938.
The gathering in Paris on January 15, at the invitation of French President François Hollande, was further evidence of appeasing the Arab-Muslim world’s Jihad against Israel.
The timing of the Paris gathering – five days short of the 75th anniversary of the notorious Wannsee Conference of 20 January 1942, held in the suburbs of Berlin, in which top-ranking Nazi officials finalized the preparation for the “Final solution to the Jewish problem” in Europe – could not have been more overtly insulting to Israel. Members of the European Union plotted shafting the Jewish state in accordance with the wishes of their Arab and Muslim friends of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – 56 Muslim states, plus “Palestine,” and the biggest bloc at the UN.
“Fake news” & writing “fake” history have long been the modus operandi of tyrants; nothing new. The “Big Lie” repeatedly broadcast so that people might succumb to believing it, was an art that Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s minister for propaganda, practiced to devastating results. The most notorious Arab ally of Hitler, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, as an admiring student of Goebbels, passed on the art of “fake” history and “Big Lie” to his allies.
It is grotesque & criminal that the EU & the UN, together in “ganging up,” insist Israel comply with their resolutions – Israeli withdrawal to pre-June 1967 boundaries – without having shown any attempt to have the “Palestinians” of the so-called “occupied territories” end their Jihadi terrorism.
Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini & Hitler/ French President François Hollande hugging ‘Palestinian’ President Mahmoud Abbass aka Abu Mazen
It was not an oversight in the Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967 that there was no mention of “Palestinian” people, or “Palestinian Arabs,” or “Palestinians.”
In the decades after the passage of Res. 242, there was a systematic push by the OIC states in the UN, supported by the EU & its predecessor, the European Community (EC), to refer to disputed territories taken by Israel in a defensive war initiated by Egypt, Syria & Jordan as “occupied” territories. The Egyptians had closed the Strait of Tiran at the mouth of the Red Sea, an act that was a casus belli, a legal cause for war.
The UN, before 1967, did not refer to the West Bank & Gaza as “occupied” territories when they were “occupied” by Egypt & Jordan after the 1948-49 war, which the Arab states launched against Israel. The Arab states then were the “occupiers” of parts of Palestine west of Jordan until 1967, and rejected any notion of Jews having a historic connection with Palestine, which they claimed was an integral part of Arab lands.
The entire jihad of Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini & since, is based on the argument that Jews have no historic rights.
From the Arab perspective of religion and politics, there never was a “Palestinian” people, or nation, distinct and separate from Arabs as a people or nation. The Jihad called by Husseini against Jews in Palestine after 1921 was in the name of “Arabs” & Islam & it has so remained since. According to the Hamas charter, “the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Trust] upon all Muslim generations till the day of Resurrection” (Article 11).
Hence, that there ever had been a “Palestinian people” was a “Big Lie” pushed by Arab states after 1967, and that the Western nations unquestioningly swallowed.
“Palaestina“ – in a still earlier effort to strip the area of its Jewish roots, this time by the ancient Romans – was the name the Emperor Hadrian gave to territory on both sides of the River Jordan – Judea & Samaria – after crushing the Jews in the Bar Kokhba Rebellion in 135 CE.
Jerusalem, its principal city, was built by King David, a Jew, some ten centuries earlier.
In the 7thcentury CE, Arabs seized “Palestine” from the Christian Byzantine Empire & it became part of the Arab, later Ottoman Empire.
The Crusaders conquered Jerusalem in 1099 during the First Crusade & subsequently the surrounding area, to establish the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the twelfth century.
Arab armies evicted the Crusaders from Palestine at the end of the thirteenth century. For the next six centuries, in the name of Islam Arabs, then Turks under the Ottoman Empire, ruled over Palestine until 1917
The British Expeditionary Forces arrived during World War I.
The defeat of the Ottoman Empire left its former Arab territories between Egypt & the Persian Gulf, including Palestine, under the control of the victorious Allied Powers, Britain & France.
In the Balfour Declaration of 2 November 1917, the British government committed itself to “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” while noting that this should not “prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities” therein.
At the San Remo Conference of April 1920, the Allied Powers agreed that Britain, under the authority of the League of Nations, would be the Mandatory Power over Palestine. The League officially handed the Mandate for Palestine to Britain as a trust in London on 24 July 1922.
The Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the Palestine Mandate; the twenty-eight articles of the Mandate stipulated how Palestine would be governed until, as everyone understood, the Jews were capable of “reconstituting their [Jewish] national home” – meaning the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. There was no mention of a “Palestinian” people in the Balfour Declaration or in the Palestine Mandate, since speaking about Palestine primarily meant everyone there. Everyone born there at the time – Jews, Muslims and Christians – were Palestinians; that was what was stamped on everyone’s passport.
From the time of the Balfour Declaration & the League’s Mandate for Palestine until the UN Resolution 181 (1947), reference to “Palestine” meant land with a historic connection to the Jewish people. It was on this basis that the Jews’ (Zionist) claim to reconstitute their national home was given legal recognition by the League, which the UN, as its successor, was legally bound to protect.
Britain’s record as the Mandatory Power in Palestine between the 2 World Wars was nothing short of shameful. British administrators of the Colonial Office, sent to Palestine, devised policies limiting Jewish immigration & favoring Arabs, as the first of a series of decisions that undermined the primary objective solemnly pledged in the Balfour Declaration & incorporated into the Mandate.
The subversion began with Sir Herbert Samuel, an English Jew, appointed the High Commissioner for Palestine in 1920, after the San Remo Conference. As the author William B. Ziff, documents in The Rape of Palestine – published in 1938 to the consternation of the British – Britain’s “stiffing” of Jews under the specious policy of treating the demands of both Jews & Arabs “equally” was in effect deliberately prejudicial against Jews.
The British historian of the Middle East, Elie Kedourie, born in Baghdad, Iraq, also documented in The Chatham House Version (1970), how Samuel’s policy, designed to conciliate Arabs, increasingly hurt Jews. Similarly, Pierre Van Paassen, a Dutch-American Unitarian minister, documented in The Forgotten Ally, (1943), the “stiffing” of Jews in Europe by the Western nations, & especially Britain as the Mandatory power in Palestine.
Britain’s perfidy over Palestine took root with the election in 1921 of a known felon, Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, a younger brother of the deceased Mufti (religious head) and known to be a rabble-rouser, as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
Husseini, despite the notoriety surrounding him, was the preferred candidate of Samuel for the position. The Grand Mufti, when World War II began, enthusiastically embraced the Third Reich, Hitler & his “Final Solution” for the Jews & found his way to Nazi Berlin.
The poisonousness of Samuel’s choice of Amin al-Husseini as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, however, was exceeded by his role in creating the Emirate of Transjordan (present-day Kingdom of Jordan) at the expense of the Palestine Mandate. This was done at the behest of the Colonial Office under Winston Churchill, reputedly the most ardent English friend and supporter of Zionists, to appease Arabs.
In 1922, the chunk of Palestine east of the River Jordan, amounting to about two-thirds of the Mandated territory, was sliced off & gifted to Abdullah, son of Sharif Hussein of Hejaz, under whose name the flag of the 1916 “Arab Revolt” against Ottoman rule was raised.
After the 1922 partition of Palestine, which gave most of the land promised to the Jews to Transjordan, the substantially reduced Mandated territory remained only west of the River Jordan. Transjordan, as an Arab state, became closed to Jewish immigration.
Consequently, the policy of allowing Jewish immigration, according to the formula of “absorptive capacity” adopted during Samuel’s tenure in Palestine, turned increasingly restrictive. Arab opposition, with incitement to violence against Jews by the Mufti & his supporters, escalated, & Britain’s appeasement of the Arabs became routine.
The sordid legacy of Britain, as the Mandatory authority in Palestine, was the restriction of Jewish immigration from Europe when it turned out to be most urgently needed. As the desperation of European Jewry mounted after Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, response of the Western powers was to deny completely entrance to Jewish refugees who had started fleeing Nazis.
Finally, a meeting of the Western nations to consider the Jewish plight was called at the initiative of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. Thirty-eight countries attended this meeting in July 1938, known as the Evian Conference, held in France.
The Evian Conference was doomed even before it convened. Among the countries attending, not one – not even Canada, Argentina or Australia, with vast open spaces – was prepared to accept Jewish refugees from Austria & Germany. Worse, the United States & Britain refused to open their doors to Jewish refugees from Hitler, while Britain also prohibited Jews from entering Palestine.
The Evian Conference was the last gasp of Western powers to lend assistance to a people threatened with extinction by their enemies. The spectacle of the Evian Conference as a charade, according to the historian Robert Wistrich,z’l, could only have firmed the resolve of Hitler to proceed with his plans for the “Final Solution.” In his book, Hitler & the Holocaust, Wistrich wrote:
“If Nazi Germany could no longer expect to export, sell, or expel its Jews to an indifferent world that plainly did not want them, then perhaps they would have to do something even more drastic.”
After the defeat of the Nazis – after their crimes against Jews were no longer disputed or hidden, the Western powers, through the UN, could have established Israel, as justice demanded, in what was left of the Palestine Mandate on the entire territory west of the River Jordan.
But the subsequent history of Palestine, approached by the Western powers with a second partition under the UN resolution of November 1947, turned out predictably as sordid as that of the Mandate under Britain’s supervision during the period 1922-48.
The Arab states, in failing to achieve their objective of defeating Israel during the 1948-67 period, adopted the unconventional means of Jihadi terrorism backed by the repeated broadcast of the “Big Lie” that the Western nations, or Christendom, willfully accepted. The “Big Lie” is that the “Palestinians” as a people under a supposed “occupation” by Israel – to which the Arabs had agreed in the Oslo II Accord (section: Land) – deserve a state of their own.
The state for the “Palestinian” people (Muslims & Christians) in 2/3rd of Palestine was created arbitrarily by Britain in creating Transjordan in 1922. The “two-state” solution in Palestine therefore has been in existence for the past ninety-five years.
For the past nine decades and more, however, Arabs & Muslims, with 56 Muslim states in the OIC, have been waging Jihad to destroy the one & only state of the Jews. Christendom, as if oblivious of its own shameful past history of anti-Semitism, has even more shamefully supported the falsification of history. The first time it was done by UNESCO, in calling ancient Biblical sites (including Jerusalem) Islamic, when Islam did not even exist at the time.
Now, with UN Security Council Resolution 2334, the UN, with the enthusiastic manipulations of U.S. President Barack Obama & backing of most European leaders, is complicit in this Jihad against Israel.
Salim Mansur is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute. He teaches in the department of political science at Western University in London, Ontario. He is the author of “Islam’s Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim”& 7″Delectable Lie: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism.”
Jared Kushner (AP)
Trump told his Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner, “If you can’t produce peace in the Middle East, nobody can.”
US President-elect Donald Trump, who assumes the presidency on Friday, spoke confidently of his son-in-law’s ability to make peace in the Middle East, during his last pre-inauguration dinner for donors at Washington DC’s Union Station on Thursday evening.
“If you can’t produce peace in the Middle East, nobody can,” Trump said, directing his remarks to his Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner.
“All my life I’ve been hearing that’s the toughest deal in the world to make,” Trump continued. “And I’ve seen it, but I have a feeling that Jared is going to do a great job.”
Trump had also conveyed his full faith in Kushner’s ability to assume the responsibilities of a Middle East peace envoy, to the German Bild outlet earlier this week.
“Jared is such a good lad, he will secure an Israel deal which no one else has managed to get,” Trump said. “You know, he’s a natural talent, he is the top, he is a natural talent. He has an innate ability to make deals, everyone likes him.”
Kushner, who is married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka, was appointed earlier this month to be a senior White House advisor for the incoming administration.
By: Jonathan Benedek, World Israel News
“This year will be the year of the people.”
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9810/trump-europe-establishment 1/22/17at 5:30 am
Appearing together in public for the first time, Marine Le Pen, leader of the French National Front, Frauke Petry, leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), Matteo Salvini, leader of Italy’s Northern League and Harald Vilimsky of Austria’s Freedom Party gathered on January 21 at a rally in Koblenz, Germany, where they called on European voters to participate in a “patriotic spring” to topple the European Union, reassert national sovereignty and secure national borders.
The leaders of Europe’s main anti-establishment parties appearing together in public for the first time, on January 21 in Koblenz, Germany. (Image source: Marine Le Pen/Twitter)
The two-hour rally was held under the banner of the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF), a group established in June 2015 by Members of the European Parliament from nine counties to oppose European federalism and the transfer of political power from voters to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, the de facto capital of the European Union.
Referring to the June 2016 decision by British voters to leave the European Union, and the rise of President Donald Trump in the United States, Le Pen said: “We are living through the end of one world, and the birth of another. We are experiencing the return of nation-states. 2016 was the year the Anglo-Saxon world woke up. 2017, I am sure, will be the year in which the peoples of the European continent rise up.”
Wilders added: “The world is changing. America is changing. Europe is changing. It started last year with Brexit, yesterday there was Trump and today the freedom-loving parties gathered in Koblenz are making a stand. The genie will not go back into the bottle again, whether you like it or not. The people of the West are awakening. They are throwing off the yoke of political correctness.”
Polls indicate that the political sea change engulfing the United States is fueling support for anti-establishment parties in Europe. In addition to anger over eroding sovereignty, a growing number of Europeans are rebelling against decades of government-imposed multiculturalism, politically correct speech codes & mass migration from the Muslim world.
In France, a new Ipsos poll for Le Monde shows that Marine Le Pen is now poised to win the first round of the French presidential election set for April 23, 2017. Le Pen has between 25% and 26% support among likely voters, compared to 23% and 25% for François Fillon of the center-right Republicans party. In December 2016, Fillon held a three-point lead over Le Pen.
In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders is now leading polls ahead of the general election scheduled for March 15, 2017. The PVV has the support of between 29% and 33% of the electorate. By contrast, support for the ruling People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) has fallen to between 23% and 27%.
In Germany, the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party (AfD) has become the third-largest party the country, with support at around 15% percent. The AfD had gained representation in ten of Germany’s 16 state parliaments, and the party hopes to win seats in the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) for the first time in national elections set for September 24, 2017.
Europe’s establishment parties, far from addressing the concerns of ordinary voters, have tried to silence dissent by branding naysayers as xenophobes, Islamophobes and neo-Nazis.
In Germany, for example, Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, in an underhanded effort to silence criticism of the government’s open door migration policy, called for German intelligence to begin monitoring the AfD.
The German Interior Ministry is now proposing to establish a “Defense Center against Disinformation” (Abwehrzentrum gegen Desinformation) to combat “fake news.” Critics described the proposed center as a “censorship monster” aimed at silencing dissenting opinions.
Enter Trump. If sufficient numbers of European voters are inspired by the political transformation taking place in the United States, the balance of European political power may begin to shift in favor of the anti-establishment parties. European political and media elites will therefore surely view Trump as a threat to the Europe’s established political order.
In a January 16 interview with the Times of London and Germany’s Bild, Trump said he believed that Brexit is “going to end up being a great thing.” He added that German Chancellor Angela Merkel made an “utterly catastrophic mistake by letting all these illegals into the country.”
In the same interview, Trump said that the NATO alliance “is very important to me” but he called it “obsolete” for failing to contain the threat posed to the West by Islamic terrorism. He also complained that some countries “don’t pay what they should pay.” Of the 28 countries in the alliance, only five — Britain, Estonia, Greece, Poland and the United States — meet the target of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense.
European commentators roundly criticized Trump for his comments and some accused the United States of being an “unreliable partner.” European leaders repeated calls for a pan-European Army, a long-held goal of European federalists, which would entail an unprecedented transfer of sovereignty from European nation states to the European Union.
Gatestone Institute Chairman Ambassador John R. Bolton, has provided much-needed context to the debate over NATO. In a recent article for the Boston Globe, he wrote: “NATO has taken intense criticism this year from Donald Trump, evoking howls of outrage from foreign-policy establishment worthies. The worthies know, however, that Trump is simply using his bullhorn to say what they themselves say more quietly: NATO’s decision-making is often sclerotic; its mission has not been adequately redefined after the Cold War; and too many members haven’t carried their weight financially or militarily for long years…. Trump has emphasized that his complaints are intended to encourage debate about improving and strengthening NATO, not sundering it. The debate is well worth having.”
Bolton added: “In many respects, France & Germany are proving they do not understand the meaning of Brexit. They are reflexively, almost religiously, following exactly the path that has provoked the EU’s current existential crisis: every failure of closer integration by the ‘European project’ leads only to calls for more integration. Whether it is establishing a currency without a government; pledging military capabilities that collectively the EU never achieves; or pretending to an EU role in world affairs that no one outside of Brussels takes seriously, ‘more Europe’ is always the answer.”
European Reactions to President Trump’s Inauguration
Trump’s presidential inauguration speech was greeted with formal politeness by European leaders — most of whom will have to work with the new leader of the free world — and with unbridled derision by European commentators and media elites — many of whom appear to be in denial about the anti-establishment fervor sweeping the United States and Europe.
Much of the European commentary about Trump has consisted of name-calling and anti-Americanism. A handful of European analysts, however, called for introspection & self-criticism.
What follows is a brief selection of European commentary on Trump’s inauguration:
In Britain, reactions to Trump were evenly divided between those who do & do not support British membership in the EU. Prime Minister Theresa May said: “From our conversations to date, I know we are both committed to advancing the special relationship between our two countries & working together for the prosperity & security of people on both sides of the Atlantic.”
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson wrote: “I think that the new president has made it very clear that he wants to put Britain at the front of the line for a new trade deal and obviously that’s extremely exciting and important.”
Nigel Farage, the politician who led the effort for the United Kingdom to leave the EU, was one of the few Europeans to understand the magnitude of Trump’s rise. He wrote: “There is a genuine feeling that Trump taking over the White House is part of a bigger, global movement. Our critics, looking at Trump’s candidacy and his speech yesterday, would call it the rise of populism. I would say it’s simply a return to nation state democracy and proper values. For this inauguration is not just a change from the 44th President to the 45th President of the United States. This is a genuine political revolution.”
In France, President François Hollande advised Trump to stay out of European affairs — this a few days after the French government tried to impose a “two-state solution” on Israel. He said: “Europe will be ready to pursue transatlantic cooperation, but it will be based on its interests and values. It does not need outside advice to tell it what to do.”
Marine Le Pen said: “Clearly, the victory of Donald Trump is another step toward the emergence of a new world, whose vocation is to replace an old order.”
Jean-Marie Colombani, the former editor-in-chief of Le Monde, articulated Europe’s geopolitical predicament, which is the direct consequence of a failure to prioritize French defense spending: “From an American point of view, Vladimir Putin is a secondary problem: Russia is a medium power, which can certainly create problems for the United States, but only marginally, as in Syria, for example. China is the only power to rival the United States. It will be, already is, the only obsession of Trump’s America.
“Vladimir Putin represents a problem, if not a threat, for Europe. In fact, the Russian President has set the goal of weakening the European Union, in order to restore the role of guardian that the USSR exercised in the East of Europe, in countries that are now members of the EU and NATO. Everything suggests that Trump shares the same objective: to weaken Europe.
“Indeed, Trump’s European policy is inspired by Nigel Farage, who spearheaded the campaign for Brexit, and whose political aim is now to achieve the dismantling of the European Union. This explains the prediction formulated by Trump on the soon-coming demise of Europe, and his anti-German undertones. In the new American president we find the language and elements of all the populist and extremist parties whose common doctrine is hostility towards the European project. Here, then, in the East and the West, Europe is squeezed as in a vise!”
In Germany, which is wholly dependent upon the United States for defense, and which has steadfastly refused to meet its commitment to pay 2% of GDP on defense, reaction to Trump’s speech was overwhelmingly negative.
Chancellor Angela Merkel pledged to work with Trump to preserve the transatlantic relationship. “The trans-Atlantic relationship will not be less important in the coming years than it was in past years,” she said. “And I will work on that. Even when there are different opinions, compromises and solutions can be best found when we exchange ideas with respect.”
Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel was far less diplomatic. He said: “We have to take this man seriously. What we heard today were highly nationalistic tones. I think we have to prepare for a rough ride.” He called on Europeans to unite to “defend our interests.”
Writing for Deutsche Welle, commentator Max Hofmann admonished Europeans to stop complaining about Trump and instead put their own house in order: “What do you do when your closest partner just disappears on you? You do what the EU should have done long ago: you fix up your home, regardless of what ‘The Donald’ is doing in the USA. There is enough work that needs to be done in Europe with regard to ‘putting your own house in order’ — Brexit, migration and refugee policies, the euro. If Europeans were honest to themselves and viewed what is happening on the old continent from the American perspective — and not just that one — then the situation would not be comprehensible to them. If US parliamentarians were to call European dissent ‘madness’ or ‘nonsense,’ no one could blame them.”
Commentator Hubert Wetzel said that Trump posed a threat to European security and called for European unity to weather the next four years. In an essay laced with hyperbole, he wrote: “Europeans will have to adapt to a new tone in dealing with America. Trump has made it clear in his speech that he will pursue a nationalist foreign policy, and his speech contained no reference to America’s allies. [Trump actually said: ‘We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones,’ and ‘We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world’]. His willingness to spend money on the defense of other countries is limited. He does not see the USA as a protective power of democratic values in the world; and he is the first U.S. president since the end of the Second World War who has openly expressed doubts about the value of European unity and the existence of NATO. At a time when Russia is trying to weaken the West by means of diplomatic, intelligence, and military means, it is an attitude that is a serious threat to united Europe.”
In Spain, geopolitical analyst Rafael Bardají wrote: “President Trump promised that a new era is beginning today. In his inaugural speech he made it very clear that he despises Washington and hates the way the establishment has ruled the country up until now, defending its privileges at the expense of citizens. Yes, a speech that can be called populist, but one that nevertheless is true. Democracy, after all, emerged as the government of the people for the people, something that, at present, is far from being a reality in America as well as in Europe. The great social contract of liberal democracy, namely, growing prosperity and peace and security for the citizens, is no longer being fulfilled. This is due to the inability of our elites to deal with the [economic] crisis, due to their obsession with pacifism and due to the subordination of the interests of nationals in favor of immigrants.”
In Switzerland, Roger Köppel, editor-in-chief of Die Weltwoche, warned against efforts by European elites to belittle Trump. He wrote: “Trump’s election was a healthy shock. The shock was necessary. Not only power cartels, but also worldviews are breaking down. This disruption is fruitful. The taboos of the last few years are now fully on the agenda: illegal immigration, Islam, the nonsense of open borders, the dysfunctional EU, the free movement of people, jobs, law & order. Trump’s predecessors did not want to talk about it, but the majority of voters did. This is democracy.”
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.