Gaza War Diary Sun. Dec. 7 Day 152 PEARL HARBOR DAY. December 7, 1941 “THEY HAVE AWAKENED THE SLEEPING GIANT.”
Dear Family & Friends,
PEARL HARBOR DAY. December 7, 1941 The Japanese Commander of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor said: I fear WE HAVE AWAKENED THE SLEEPING GIANT! That was America’s first ‘mass casualty event’ – just like 9/11/2001.
Personal note #1 When I spent that day writing 8 updates as news came in, I titled them “THEY HAVE AWAKENED THE SLEEPING GIANT.”
Personal note #2: After the vote on November 10, 1975 in the U.N. that “Zionism is Racism”, I got mad. I decided to take everything I knew as an Environmental activist & put it to use improving our ability to support the Jewish State of Israel. I founded M.E.I.R. (which means ‘The Enlightener’), Mid East Information Resource: a Jewish speakers’ bureau to fight Arab propaganda which was already virulent then.
I initiated a series of Seminars at the local JCC, led by professional who volunteered to teach us all what we needed to know to go to battle against the then well-funded Arab propaganda machine. Joan Peters who wrote the amazing ‘sine qua non’ (without which there isn’t…) world awakening book: “From Time Immemorial: Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine”, was one of our best Seminar leaders. She taught us what you see in brief below: There were 850,000 Jews from Arab countries who had lived in the Middle East & North Africa for centuries – under total Muslim domination…as ‘dhimmis’– second class citizens. Joan gave me a 16 mm 45 minute film documenting their history – & why they knew we Jews could never, ever negotiate a peace agreement with the Arab Muslims as countries, tribes, or individuals. I took that film, a 16 mm projector, screen & documents to all the organizations who wanted & needed to know this piece of history we had never been taught. Why not? Because living under strict Sharia Law, the Jews were never allowed to, never free to write their history.
Today, I am pleased to see that finally that history is beginning to be learned & understood by our people all over the world & especially in Israel where it is so needed. We in Israel are finally recognizing the history of the 850,000 Jews from Arab Lands & honoring them. By now we should know we don’t negotiate with the Muslim Arab world & expect them to keep any negotiated agreement beyond 10 years. Because Mohammed signed The Hudabaiya Treaty with the Jewish Qaraish tribe in Mecca in the 7th Century for 10 years. Because he broke it in 2 years when he was militarily stronger, attacked & defeated the Jewish tribe, decapitated 800 Jewish men, selling the women & children into slavery. That is exactly what ISIS, ISIL, AQAP, IS, HAMAS, DAESH, PLO, PA…etc. are doing now. THAT’S from where & why the beheading, the murdering with knives, guns, vehicles comes to us all in the civilized world.
How do we defend ourselves & protect our loved ones? Learn the past. Learn that this is truly a religious war. They aren’t fighting for territory. They want to murder Jews because the Koran tells them to. Islam means ‘submission’ to what is written. They are supposed to follow Mohammed’s examples & he cut off Jewish heads. When you get what’s in their heads & hearts, the world will know that the negotiators cannot win “their hearts & minds”. All we can do is to stand strong, trust in G-d, & defend Our Jewish country. Our Land, Our People & Our Book are all One.
Have a truly peaceful night. All the very best, Gail/Geula/Savta/Savta Raba/Mom
2.Bennett Asks Indyk: How Many Need to Die Before You Wake Up?
4.Feiglin as Likud Chairman = 18 seats for Likud! By Yosef Rabin
17.Alinskyites or Patriots? By Joe David
1.THE TRUTH CONCERNING THE ARAB REFUGEES OF 1948 from Joan Peters “From Time Immemorial: Origins of Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine 1984
I just published an excerpt from the book “From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine”, written by Joan Peters, 1984, pp, 12-16. The excerpt is an excellent source of information regarding what really happened in 1948 regarding those Arabs who left Israel.
:: THE TRUTH CONCERNING THE ARAB REFUGEES OF 1948 http://emetnews.org/analysis/
Although Arab myth tells of Israel driving the Arabs out in 1948, it was their leaders who told them to leave. To this day the surrounding Arab nations still refuse to absorb them into their nations, preferring instead to let them suffer in refugee camps even though most of them were not even alive in 1948.
Be sure to share it with others. Lee Underwood Emet News Service http://emetnews.org/
The Truth Concerning the Arab Refugees of 1948 [Joseph E. Katz]
Although Arab myth tells of Israel driving the Arabs out in 1948, it was their leaders who told them to leave. To this day the Arab nations still refuse to absorb them into the surrounding Arab nations, preferring instead to let them suffer in refugee camps even though most of them were not even alive in 1948.
The people are in great need of a “myth” to fill their consciousness & imagination…. — Musa Alami, 1948
Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner…. they have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, even criminal. — King Hussein of Jordan, 1960
Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees… while it is we who made them leave…. We brought disaster upon … Arab refugees, by inviting them & bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave…. We have rendered them dispossessed…. We have accustomed them to begging…. We have participated in lowering their moral & social level…. Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, & throwing bombs upon … men, women & children-all this in the service of political purposes …. — Khaled Al-Azm, Syria’s Prime Minister after the 1948 war
The nations of western Europe condemned Israel’s position despite their guarantee of her security…. They understood that … their dependence upon sources of energy precluded their allowing themselves to incur Arab wrath. — Al-Haytham Al-Ayubi, Arab Palestinian [sic] military strategist, 1974
At the time of the 1948 war, Arabs in Israel were invited by their fellow Arabs — invited to “leave” while the “invading” Arab armies would purge the land of Jews. The invading Arab governments were certain of a quick victory; leaders warned the Arabs in Israel to run for their lives.
In response, the Jewish Haifa Workers’ Council issued an appeal to the Arab residents of Haifa: [See Official British Police Report ]
For years we have lived together in our city, Haifa…. Do not fear: Do not destroy your homes with your own hands … do not bring upon yourself tragedy by unnecessary evacuation & self-imposed burdens…. But in this city, yours & ours, Haifa, the gates are open for work, for life, & for peace for you & your families.”
While the Haifa pattern appears to have been prevalent, there were exceptions. Arabs in another crucial strategic area, who were “opening fire on the Israelis shortly after surrendering,” were “forced” to leave by the defending Jewish army to prevent what former Israeli Premier Itzhak Rabin described as a “hostile & armed populace” from remaining “in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route …” In his memoirs, Rabin stated that Arab control of the road between the seacoast & Jerusalem had “all but isolated” the “more than ninety thousand Jews in Jerusalem,” nearly one-sixth of the new nation’s total population.
If Jerusalem fell, the psychological blow to the nascent Jewish state would be more damaging than any inflicted by a score of armed brigades.
According to a research report by the Arab-sponsored Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut, however, “the majority” of the Arab refugees in 1948 were not expelled, & “68%” left without seeing an Israeli soldier.
After the Arabs’ defeat in the 1948 war, their positions became confused: some Arab leaders demanded the “return” of the “expelled” refugees to their former homes despite the evidence that Arab leaders had called upon Arabs to flee. (Such as President Truman’s International Development Advisory Board Report, March 7, 1951: “Arab leaders summoned Arabs of Palestine to mass evacuation … as the documented facts reveal….”)
At the same time, Emile Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Command, called for the prevention of the refugees from “return.” He stated in the Beirut Telegraphon August 6, 1948: “it is inconceivable that the refugees should be sent back to their homes while they are occupied by the Jews…. It would serve as a first step toward Arab recognition of the state of Israel & Partition.”
Arab activist Musa Alami despaired: as he saw the problem, “how can people struggle for their nation, when most of them do not know the meaning of the word? … The people are in great need of a “myth” to fill their consciousness & imagination….” According to Alami, an indoctrination of the “myth” of nationality would create “identity” & “self-respect.”
However, Alami’s proposal was confounded by the realities: between 1948 & 1967, the Arab state of Jordan claimed annexation of the territory west of the Jordan River, the “West Bank” area of Palestine — the same area that would later be forwarded by Arab “moderates” as a “mini-state” for the “Palestinians.”
Thus, that area was, between 1948 & 1967, called “Arab land,” the peoples were Arabs, & yet the “myth” that Musa Alami prescribed — the cause of “Palestine” for the “Palestinians” — remained unheralded, unadopted by the Arabs during two decades. According to Lord Caradon, “Every Arab assumed the Palestinians [refugees] would go back to Jordan.”
When “Palestine” was referred to by the Arabs, it was viewed in the context of the intrusion of a “Jewish state amidst what the Arabs considered their own exclusive environment or milieu, the ‘Arab region.'” As the late Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser “screamed” in 1956, “the imperialists’ ‘destruction of Palestine'” was “an attack on Arab nationalism,” which “‘unites us from the Atlantic to the Gulf.'”
Ever since the 1967 Israeli victory, however, when the Arabs determined that they couldn’t obliterate Israel militarily, they have skillfully waged economic, diplomatic, & propaganda war against Israel. This, Arabs reasoned, would take longer than military victory but ultimately the result would be the same.
Critical to the new tactic, however, was a device designed to whittle away at the sympathies of Israel’s allies: what the Arabs envisioned was something that could achieve Israel’s shrinking to indefensible size at the same time that she became insolvent.
This program was reviewed in 1971 by Mohamed Heikal, then still an important spokesman of Egypt’s leadership in his post as editor of the influential, semi-official newspaper Al Ahram. Heikal called for a change of Arab rhetoric — no more threats of “throwing Israel into the sea” — & a new political strategy aimed at reducing Israel to indefensible borders & pushing her into diplomatic & economic isolation. He predicted that “total withdrawal” would “pass sentence on the entire state of Israel.”
As a more effective means of swaying world opinion, the Arabs adopted humanitarian terminology in support of the “demands” of the “Palestinian refugees,” to replace former Arab proclamations of carnage & obliteration. In Egypt, for example, in 1968 “the popularity of the Palestinians was rising,” as a result of Israel’s 1967 defeat of the Arabs & subsequent 1968 “Israeli air attacks inside Egypt.”
It was as recently as 1970 that Egyptian President Nasser defined “Israel” as the cause of “the expulsion of the Palestinian people from their land.” Although Nasser thus gave perfunctory recognition to the “Palestinian Arab” allegation, he was in reality preoccupied with the overall basic, pivotal Arab concern.
As he continued candidly in the same sentence, Israel was “a permanent threat to the Arab nation.” Later that year (May 1970), Nasser “formulated his rejection of a Jewish state in Palestine,” but once again he stressed the “occupation of our [Pan-Arab] lands,” while only secondarily noting: “And we reject its [Israel’s] insistence on denying the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people in their country.”
Subsequently the Arabs have increased their recounting of the difficulties & travail of Arab refugees in the “host” countries adjacent to Israel [e.g., the surrounding Arab nations]. Photographs & accounts of life in refugee camps, as well as demands for the “legitimate” but unlimited & undefined “rights” of the “Palestinians,” have flooded the communications media of the world in a subtle & adroit utilization of the art of professional public relations.
A prominent Arab Palestinian strategist, AI-Haytham Al-Ayubi, analyzed the efficacy of Arab propaganda tactics in 1974, when he wrote:
The image of Israel as a weak nation surrounded by enemies seeking its annihilation evaporated [after 1967], to be replaced by the image of an aggressive nation challenging world opinion.*  [As Rosemary Sayigh wrote in the Journal of Palestine Studies, “a strongly defined Palestinian identity did not emerge until 1968, two decades after expulsion.” It had taken twenty years to establish the “myth” prescribed by Musa Alami.
The high visibility of the sad plight of the homeless refugees — always tragic — has uniquely attracted the world’s compassion.
In addition, the campaign has provided non-Arabs with moral rationalization for abiding by the Arabs’ anti-Israel rules, which are regarded as prerequisites to getting Arab oil & the financial benefits from Arab oil wealth. Millions of dollars have been spent to exploit the Arab refugees & their repatriation as “the heart of the matter,” as the primary human problem that must be resolved before any talk of overall peace with Israel.
Reflecting on the oil weapon’s influence in the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Al-Ayubi shrewdly observed:
The nations of western Europe condemned Israel’s position despite their guarantee of her security & territorial integrity. They understood that European interests & their dependence upon sources of energy precluded their allowing themselves to incur Arab wrath.
Thus Al-Ayubi recommended sham “peace-talks,” with the continuation, however, of the “state of ‘no peace,'” & he advocated the maintaining of “moral pressure together with carefully-balanced military tension …” for the “success of the new Arab strategy.” Because “loss of human life remains a sore point for the enemy,” continual “guerrilla” activities can erode Israel’s self-confidence & “the faith” of the world in the “Israeli policeman.”
Al-Ayubi cited, as an example, “the success of Arab foreign policy maneuvers” in 1973, which was so total that … With the exception of the United States & the racist African governments, the entire world took either a neutral or pro-Arab position on the question of legality of restoring the occupied territories through any means — including the use of military force.
As Al-Ayubi noted, “The basic Arab premise concerning ‘the elimination of the results of aggression’ remains accepted by the world.” Thus the “noose” will be placed around the neck of the “Zionist entity.”
But the Arabs’ creation of the “myth” of nationality did not create the advantageous situation for the Palestinian Arabs that Musa Alami had hoped for. Instead, the conditions he complained of bitterly were perpetuated: the Arabs “shut the door” of citizenship “in their faces & imprison them in camps.”
Khaled Al-Azm, who was Syria’s Prime Minister after the 1948 war, deplored the Arab tactics & the subsequent exploitation of the refugees, in his 1972 memoirs:
Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees … while it is we who made them leave…. We brought disaster upon … Arab refugees, by inviting them & bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave…. We have rendered them dispossessed…. We have accustomed them to begging…. We have participated in lowering their moral & social level…. Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, & throwing bombs upon … men, women & children-all this in the service of political purposes…. 
Propaganda has successfully veered attention away from the Arab world’s manipulation of its peoples among the refugee group on the one hand, & the number of those who now in fact possess Arab citizenship in many lands, on the other hand. The one notable exception is Jordan, where the majority of Arab refugees moved, & where they are entitled to citizenship according to law, “unless they are Jews.”
Palestinian leadership will not let the refugee problem be solved. In 1958, former director of UNRWA Ralph Galloway declared angrily while in Jordan that: The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations, & as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die.
Palestinians Burn Effigy of Canadian Minister
January 17, 2001
[Reuters] Palestinians burned an effigy of Canadian Foreign Minister John Manley on Thursday in a protest against Canada’s offer to accept Palestinian refugees as part of a Middle East peace plan. Hooded gunmen fired into the air during the protest in Balata refugee camp near the West Bank [sic] town of Nablus [Shechem] & hundreds of demonstrators shouted slogans demanding the right of return to former homes. “We refuse resettlement of refugees,” they shouted.
Manley told the Toronto Star newspaper in an interview published on January 10, “We are prepared to receive refugees. We are prepared to contribute to an international fund to assist with resettlement in support of a peace agreement.” Manley said there had been no discussion on the number of refugees to be resettled outside the Middle East.
Canada heads the multilateral Refugee Working Group, a committee charged with trying to resolve the plight of Palestinian refugees.
1. Habib Issa, ed., Al-Hoda, Arabic daily, June 8, 1951, New York; see Economist (London), May 15, 1948, regarding “panic flight”; also see Economist, October 2, 1948, for British eyewitness report of Arab Higher Committee radio “announcements” that were “urging all Arabs in Haifa to quit.” [return]
2. Near East Arabic Radio, April 3, 1948: “It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees to flee from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa & Jerusalem, & that certain leaders . . . make political capital out of their miserable situation . . .” Cited by Anderson et al., “The Arab Refugee Problem & How It Can Be Solved,” p. 22; for more regarding Arab responsibility, see Sir Alexander Cadogan, Ambassador of Great Britain to the United Nations, speech to the Security Council, S.C., O.R., 287th meeting, April 23, 1948; also see Harry Stebbens, British Port Officer stationed in Haifa, letter in Evening Standard (London), January 10, 1969. [return]
3. April 28, 1948; according to the Economist (London), October 1, 1948, only “4,000 to 6,000” of the “62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa” remained there until the time of the war; also see Kenneth Bilby, New Star in the Near East (New York: Doubleday, 1950), pp. 30-31; Lt. Col. Moshe Pearlman, The Army of Israel (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), pp. 116-17; & Major E. O’Ballance, The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 (London, 1956), p. 52. [return]
4. David Shipler, New York Times, October 23, 1979, p. A3. Shipler cites Larry Collins & Dominique Lapierre, O Jerusalem, & Dan Kurzman, Genesis 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War. [return]
5. New York Times, October 23, 1979. [return]
6. Yitzhak Rabin, The Rabin Memoirs (Boston & Toronto: Little, Brown, 1979), p. 23, pp. 22-44. [return]
7. Peter Dodd & Halim Barakat, River Without Bridges:- A Study of the Exodus of the 1967 Arab Palestinian Refugees (Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1969), p. 43; on April 27, 1950, the Arab National Committee of Haifa stated in a memorandum to the Arab States: “The removal of the Arab inhabitants … was voluntary & was carried out at our request … The Arab delegation proudly asked for the evacuation of the Arabs & their removal to the neighboring Arab countries…. We are very glad to state that the Arabs guarded their honour & traditions with pride & greatness.” Cited by J.B. Schechtman, The Arab Refugee Problem (New York: Philosophical Library, 1952), pp. 8-9; also see Al-Zaman, Baghdad journal, April 27, 1950. [return]
8. Musa Alami, “The Lesson of Palestine,” The Middle East Journal, October 1949. [return]
9. Lord Caradon, “Cyprus & Palestine,” lecture at the University of Chicago, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, February 17, 1976. Similar statement by Folke Bernadotte, To Jerusalem, p. 113. [return]
10. P.J. Vatikiotis, Nasser & His Generation (London: Croom Heim, 1978), pp. 256-57. [return]
11. Ibid. p. 234, quoting a speech by Nasser at Suez, July 26, 1956; in 1952, Sheikh Pierre Gemayel, then leader of the Lebanese National Youth Organization “Al Kataeb,” wrote: “Why should the refugees stay in Lebanon, & not in Egypt, Iraq & Jordan which claim that they are all Arab & beyond that, Moslem? … Isn’t it for that alone that these so-called nationalist elements are demanding to resettle the refugees in Lebanon because they are themselves Arab & Moslems?” Al-Hoda, Lebanese journal, January 3, 1952, cited in Schechtman, The Arab Refugee Problem, p. 84; also see Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, “Quest for an Arab Future,” in Arab Journal, 1966-67, vol. 4, nos. 2-4, pp. 23-29. [return]
12. “Mohammed Hassanein Heykal Discusses War & Peace in the Middle East,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Autumn 1971. Heykal thus joined the Arab chorus heard after the 1967 war. [return]
13. Vatikiotis, Nasser, p. 257; also see Mohamed Heikal, The Road To Ramadan (New York: Ballantine Books, 1975), p. 56. [return]
14. Interview with Nasser, Le Monde (Paris: February 1970), cited in Vatikiotis, Nasser, p. 259. [return]
15. Charles Foltz, interview with Nasser, U.S. News & World Report, May 1970, cited in Vatikiotis, Nasser, p. 259; see also Le Monde interview, February 1970. [return]
16. contrary to the popular view … in the West,” a “great many refugees” were living out of camps “in comfortable housing outside,” in the beginning of the 1960s according to Fawaz Turki, The Disinherited: Journal of a Palestinian Exile (New York & London: Monthly Review Press, 1972), p. 41. [return]
17. Al-Haytham A]-Ayubi, “Future Arab Strategy in the Light of the Fourth War,” Shuun Filastiniyya (Beirut), October 1974. AI-Ayubi, also called Abu-Hammam, has been military head of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Lieutenant Colonel in the Syrian army, & highly respected strategist on Israel. He perceived the “guerrilla” war against Israel as the ultimately successful one. [return]
18. Rosemary Sayigh, “Sources of Palestinian Nationalism: A Study of a Palestinian Camp in Lebanon,”Journal of Palestinian Studies, vol. 6, no. 4, 1977, p. 2 1; see also Sayigh, “The Palestinian Identity Among Camp Residents,” Journal of Palestinian Studies vol. 6, no. 3, 1977, pp. 3-22. [return]
19. In 1981, the Organization of African Unity’s executive secretary, Ambassador Oumarou Garba Youssoupou from Niger, reflected upon why the millions of displaced souls in Africa were not as visible: “We’re not getting the publicity because of our culture. No refugee is turned away from the host countries, so we’re not dramatic enough for television. We have no drownings, no piratings…. We don’t make the news … .. Aiding Africa’s Refugees,” by Gertrude Samuels, The New Leader, May 4, 1981. [return]
20. AI-Ayubi, “Future Arab Strategy in the Light of the Fourth War.” [return]
21. Musa Alami, “The Lesson of Palestine,” The Middle East Journal, October 1949. [return]
22. Khaled Al-Azm, Memoirs [Arabic], 3 vols. (AI-Dar al Muttahida Id-Nashr, 1972), vol. 1, pp. 386-87, cited by Maurice Roumani, The Case of the Jews from Arab countries: A Neglected Issue, preliminary edition (Jerusalem: World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries [WOJAC], 1975), p. 61. [return]
23. Jordanian National Law, Official Gazette, No. 1171, February 16, 1954, p. 105, Article 3(3). Between 1948 & 1967, 200,000 to 300,000 Arabs moved from the West Bank to the “East Bank,” according to Eliyahu Kanovsky, in Jordan, People & Politics in the Middle East, Michael Curtis, ed. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1971), p. 111. [return]
24. Prittie, “Middle East Refugees,” in Michael Curtis et al., eds., The Palestinians: People, History, Politics(New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1975), p. 71. [return]
[Excerpted from the book From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine, written by Joan Peters, 1984, pp, 12-16]
[ Published: December 5, 2014 ]
The Truth Concerning the Arab Refugees of 1948 Excerpted from the book From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine, written by Joan Peters, 1984, pp, 12-16
:: THE TRUTH CONCERNING THE ARAB REFUGEES OF 1948
2.Bennett Asks Indyk: How Many Need to Die Before You Wake Up?
At Saban Forum, Bennett says ‘I believe that last summer 10% of Israeli moved from left to center, & from to center to right.’
By Cynthia Blank Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com First Publish: 12/7/2014, 8:36 AM
Economy Minister Naftali Bennett expounded his political vision & discussed upcoming elections Saturday night at the Saban Forum in Washington during an interview with Martin Indyk, US President Barack’s Obama’s envoy to Israel-Palestinian Authority peace talks.
In a heated portion of the dialogue, Bennett asked Indyk: “How many people need to die before you wake up?”
“I believe that the last summer moved anywhere from 10% of Israelis moved from the left to center, & from center to the right,” Bennett stated, referring to public feelings in the wake of Operation Protective Edge last summer.
“It wasn’t a two day thing, but a fifty day thing. People felt to some degree helpless…these missiles & rockets were fired from the very place we did things right.”
Bennett then began discussing his “imperfect, but active” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which includes the annexation of area C of Judea & Samaria into Israel. All Palestinians living in that area will then be offered citizenship or permanent residency.
Referring to the division of Jerusalem, Bennett stated, “The last thing the Arabs of Jerusalem want is to live under the corrupt & dysfunctional rule of the Palestinian Authority.”
Opinions are divided on Judea & Samaria, he added. “The reality is that the solution we have discussed in the last three decades is not working. Why don’t we take the money being invested in the industry of peace & conferences, & invest it in making the lives of Jews & Arabs better?”
“No one is going anywhere – neither are we, nor are they. We should be working to improve what there is.” He added, “maybe this is not the perfect solution but we should not chase after perfection that will lead us to disaster.”
‘Undo the years of nonsense’
“There’s a process of changing the global view of what’s going on here,” Bennett told Indyk, who asked if he could deal with the consequences of his solution to the conflict, which might include an international boycott of Israel.
“We have to undo the years of nonsense that the peace industry has fermented, which led us to the position where the world thinks we are occupiers in our own land.”
“Israel has to identify what it’s true values are,” Bennett stressed.
Earlier in the conversation, Bennett discussed his relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu & their “arrangement” not to attack each other during the campaign for the 2015 elections.
However, Bennett did note that he “was critical & I still am critical of [Netanyahu’s] policies. He supports a Palestinian state & I oppose it. I thought that in many cases he made mistakes [during Operation Protective Edge] & I told him, & sometimes publicly, when I thought it might influence.”
Yet, when asked if he thought he would become prime minister, Bennett demurred, instead saying he has a lot to learn & that he’s “not obsessed with becoming prime minister.”
Bennett, who was inspired to join politics after the Second Lebanon War in 2006, stated that “the mission of my party is to restore the Jewish soul to Israel.”
Despite this being one of the most chaotic elections he can remember, Bennett emphasized that he continues to envision Israel as “a lighthouse standing in a Muslim storm.”
WHATEVER ELSE YOU DO OR SEE TODAY, PLEASE CLICK ON THIS YouTube or enter it into your browser to turn it on.
Video: Naftali Bennett tells off Martin Indyk & calls for Pollard’s Release http://youtu.be/5haOuQJALAY
IMRA – Independent Media Review & Analysis
3.Michael Oren: The Israeli Left ‘Has Crashed’
Former Israeli ambassador to the US says the Left refuses to accept the Palestinian aren’t interested in negotiations. By Arutz Sheva Staff IsraelNationalNews.com First Publish: 12/6/2014, 11:09 PM
Israel’s former ambassador to the United States Dr. Michael Oren addressed the Saban Forum Saturday on the topic of the political process between Israel & the Palestinian Authority – & had some damning words for the Israeli Left.
“The Left in Israel has crashed, because it has not yet internalized that the Palestinians are not part of the negotiations, & aren’t interested in being so,” said Oren. “The Palestinians have chosen a different path, the destructive path of delegitimization of Israel.”
“On the other hand, the Right doesn’t yet have the courage to admit that Israel isn’t able to protect its identity & its alliance with the US, while ruling 2.5 million Palestinians,” Oren continued.
“Inaction isn’t an option. Israel needs to take its fate into its own hands, & to come out with a political initiative that will serve its interests,” he insisted.
Also speaking at the forum on Saturday was former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who commented on the tensions between Jerusalem & the current White House administration.
“The relationship between the US & Israel is stable & will continue to be so,” she said. “It is silly to think that there won’t be disagreements between leaders, but what is important is the institutional support of the US for Israel, without any connection to the leadership.”
Regarding Iran’s nuclear program, Clinton said she agreed with Israel’s position that no deal was better than a bad one.
Another speaker at this year’s Saban forum was Israel’s Labor party leader Yitzhak Herzog, who stated his confidence that he would replace Binyamin Netanyahu as prime minister following elections in March 2015.
Speaking Friday night, Herzog expressed his intention to form a pact with other left-wing parties. “I intend to win the next elections & to form the next government. I offer a genuine alternative to Netanyahu,” he declared.
Jewish Home party leader & Economics Minister Naftali Bennett is also due to address the forum.
Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman was forced to cancel his attendance after his mother passed away.
4.Feiglin as Likud Chairman = 18 seats for Likud! By Yosef Rabin
Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com 12/7/2014, 11:12 AM
For all those who doubt Moshe Feiglin’s ability to lead Israel, all doubts have now vanished!
According to a groundbreaking election poll if Moshe Feiglin wins the Likud Primaries to become Chairman of the Likud Party in a general election the Likud will win 18 seats!
It can only be assumed that once Moshe actually wins the Likud primaries, he will receive a greater platform via the media to reach out to the Israeli Public. Once all Israelis become familiar with Moshe’s platform, I have no doubt Likud will rise higher in the polls & take the election by a nice majority!
Get ready for the State of Jews to transform to a true Jewish State!
From: 5.Arlene Kushner email@example.com “A Political Circus”
December 6, 2014 Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat)
It wouldn’t do, I suppose, for the political situation to have clarity for too long. Or for the news to simply be promising. We’ve now entered the circus arena: the rumors are flying, predictions are contradictory, & some surprising alliances are being suggested as possible. All of this defeats clarity & considerably dampens optimism.
I will offer here only an overview, with a promise of more to come when it’s possible to make better sense of how matters will evolve. In the few days since my last posting – announcing the firing of Livni & Lapid & the advent of elections – there have been news stories & opinion pieces about all of the following:
Caroline Glick, in her piece, “Lapid’s Political Crackup,” two days ago, explained why, in her assessment, the forthcoming election is very necessary. “The up to NIS 1.2 billion that taxpayers will have to pay to finance the vote scheduled for March 17 is money well spent…
“In 2013, Lapid ran as a centrist…
“Lapid & his ministers from Yesh Atid exchanged their capitalist platform for socialist policies immediately upon taking office. In so doing they put Israel on a path to recession & social upheaval.
“[His policies have] already damaged Israel’s international credit rating.”
Let me add here that Netanyahu was a superb finance minister in his time, & set the nation on a strong fiscal path. He would readily perceive & be greatly distressed by what Glick describes here.
Wrote Glick, “….according to polls, Netanyahu has no rivals for the job. It is not merely that nearly three times as many people think that Netanyahu is the best person to serve as prime minister when compared to his closest contender, Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog. It’s also that the polls show right-wing parties picking up seats, while Lapid’s party is likely to lose more than half it seats in the Knesset.” (Emphasis added)
But JPost political commentator Gil Hoffman wrote two days ago about a Panels Research Poll done for the JPost & its sister Hebrew paper just one day before”: “It asked respondents whether they want Netanyahu to remain prime minister after the vote. Sixty percent said no…” (Emphasis added)
That was a bit of a shocker when it made headlines. But making sense of this, while a bit difficult, is certainly not impossible if you read the description of the questions carefully.
Glick was referring to a race between Netanyahu as head of Likud vs. Herzog as head the Labor party, leading the opposition. But Hoffman was describing a choice between Netanyahu as head of Likud as vs. someone else – such as Gideon Sa’ar – within the Likud party itself. That’s another matter all together.
People, it seems, feel it is time for new blood in Likud. But have very little doubt about whether Likud should lead the next coalition. Every poll indicates that Likud would command the most mandates (although precise figures vary).
The real battle then, if there is one, may be within Likud itself.
There are rumors that Gideon Sa’ar, who left politics just months ago, is mulling the idea of challenging Netanyahu in the primaries.
Then we have Israel Hayom – a staunch Netanyahu supporter, I note – citing a New Wave Research poll that indicated that the right wing bloc would come out ahead on elections. What is more, when asked “who is most qualified to serve as prime minister?” a larger percentage selected Netanyahu than any of the other party heads.
As far as the significant lead by a right wing bloc of parties, there are a couple of factors to be kept in mind:
One is the assumption that Yisrael Beitenu (Israel – Our House), headed by Avigdor Lieberman, is a right wing party. A reasonable enough assumption. But there were rumors – probably (hopefully!) no more than rumors – that Lieberman might join forces with Lapid. That would truly be shocking if so. Yisrael Beitenu ran on a joint list with Likud the last time around.
But the fact that it was presented as something that conceivably might happen is an indication of how much Lieberman is seen to vacillate.
Then you have Moshe Kahlon. He is supposed to be forming a new party, which is not yet fully registered – with no name or slate announced. While there is some indication that he intends to focus on social issues, there is enormous speculation as to where he will stand within the line-up of parties. He is generally counted as part of the right wing when the poll results are presented. But that is not a sure thing.
Kahlon, who was with Likud, & served as Minister of Communications before his resignation from politics in 2012, was a popular figure. The guessing is that he will pull down a very respectable number of votes.
At the same time that we’re considering all of the above, there is also the jockeying on the left to consider. We have heard that Livni & Lapid might join forces, but alternately, that Livni is considering an offer from Labor.
Just about every poll I’ve seen shows Lapid’s Yesh Atid way down in mandates; the only way he has any hope at all of making an impact is if he joins forces. Even then it is all fairly dubious.
Ah, & then there’s Shaul Mofaz, currently head of the almost defunct Kadima, who is said to be working out a deal to join Labor as well.
What seems fairly certain is that Kadima will be history, as well it should be, with Livni’s party not far behind.
All of this is without mention of the stories that Eli Yishai of Shas may be mulling a break from the party to start something new.
One other factor that I want to mention here is the specter of attempts by Obama to influence our election results. As I last reported, Kerry declared right after the announcement of elections that he hoped the new government would resume “peace negotiations.”
He may have been blowing in the wind. But it is more Obama’s style to do what he can to promote the election of a coalition that will support negotiations. It is no secret in any case that he despises Netanyahu.
I’ve picked up two sorts of rumors:
 that he is considering levying sanctions against Israel because of our building (at the same time that he is attempting to block sanctions against Iran) &
 that he is thinking of withholding the US veto against anti-Israel measures in the Security Council.
The idea would be that the Israeli electorate would realize that Netanyahu had damaged Israel’s relationship with the US & thus vote for his opponents.
There are concerned readers warning me about these possibilities.
I most certainly recognize that Obama is a snake in the grass. But for pragmatic reasons I am not yet ready to become too distressed about these possibilities. That is, first, because the Congress is solidly with us.
And then, my own understanding is that the Israeli electorate is so anti-Obama that, were the president to act against Israel’s interests, they would support Netanyahu with even further strength. Caroline Glick has written that Obama is aware of this possibility, & hesitant to act, less his gambit backfire.
In my next posting I would like to turn to issues other than the elections. The very serious problems we are facing are not about to go away.
Here I end with a quote I rather liked, attributed to Yuval Steinitz, who, as a very competent Finance Minister, shepherded us successfully through a very difficult fiscal time:
“It’s a problem when the best thing the finance minister has going for him is a good head of hair.” That’s pretty boy Yair Lapid all over!
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
If it is reproduced & emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be noted.
6.Netanyahu’s epic understandings with Egyptian, Saudi & UAE rulers – a potential campaign weapon
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report December 6, 2014, 10:22 AM (IDT)
The six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) rulers meet in the Qatari capital of Doha next week amid high suspense across the Arab world. Its agenda is topped by moves to finally unravel the 2010 Arab Spring policy championed by US President Barack Obama, moves that also bear the imprint of extensive cooperation maintained on the quiet between Israel & key Arab rulers.
DEBKAfile reports that the Doha parley is designed to restore Egypt under the rule of President Abdel Fatteh El-Sisi to the lead role it occupied before the decline of Hosni Mubarak. Another is to root out the Muslim Brotherhood by inducing their champion, the young Qatari ruler, Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, to drop his government’s support.
At talks taking place in Riyadh ahead of the summit, Qatari officials appeared ready to discontinue the flow of weapons, funds & intelligence maintained since 2011 to the Brothers & their affiliates across the Arab world (Libya, Egypt, Syria, Jordan & Hamas-ruled Gaza), as well shutting down the El Jazeera TV network – or at least stopping the channel’s use as the Brotherhood’s main propaganda platform.
The Doha summit is designed to crown a historic effort led by Saudi King Abdullah, UAE ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed & President El-Sisi to undo the effects of the Obama administration’s support for elements dedicated to the removal of conservative Arab rulers, such as the Brotherhood.
They have found a key ally in this drive in Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who took advantage of the chance of an epic breakthrough in relations with the leading bloc of Arab nations, with immediate & far-reaching effect on Israeli security & its standing in the region.
Yet at the same time, Netanyahu has kept this feat under his hat – even while smarting under a vicious assault by his detractors – ex-finance minister Yair Lapid & opposition leader Yakov Herzog of Labor – on his personal authority & leadership credibility (“everything is stuck,” “he’s out of touch.”) & obliged to cut short the life of his government for a general election on March 17.
He faces the voter with the secret still in his pocket of having achieved close coordination with the most important Arab leaders – not just on the Iranian nuclear issue & the Syrian conflict, but also the Palestinian question, which has throughout Israel’s history bedeviled its ties with the Arab world.
When Yair Lapid, whom Netanyahu sacked this week, boasted, “I am talking to the Americans” while accusing the prime minister of messing up ties with Washington, he meant he was talking to the Americans close to Barack Obama, whom Egypt, Saudi Arabia & Abu Dhabi, hand in hand with Netanyahu, have judged adverse to their regimes.
This Arab-Israeli collaboration encompasses too many areas to keep completely hidden. Its fruits have begun breaking surface in a string of events.
This week, Israel apparently out of the blue, quietly agreed to Egypt deploying 13 army battalions in Sinai (demilitarized under their 1979 peace treaty), including tanks, & flying fighter jets over terrorist targets.
A joint Saudi-Israeli diplomatic operation was instrumental in obstructing a US-Iran deal on Tehran’s nuclear program.
Another key arena of cooperation is Jerusalem.
Friday, Dec. 5, Jordan announced the appointment of 75 new guards for the Al Aqsa Mosque compound on Temple Mount. The director of the mosque, Sheikh Omar al-Kiswani, said they will begin work in the coming days.
This was the outcome of Jordanian King Abdullah’s talks with the Egyptian president in Cairo Sunday, Nov. 30, in which they agreed that the Muslim Waqf Authority on Temple Mount must change its mode of conduct & replace with new staff the violent elements from Hamas, the Al Tahrir movement & Israeli Arab Islamists, which had taken charge of “security.”.
The Moslem attacks from the Mount on Jewish worshippers praying at the Western Wall below & Israeli police have accordingly ceased in the two weeks since Israel lifted its age restrictions on Muslim worshippers attending Friday prayers at Al Aqsa.
Israel groups advocating the right to Jewish prayer on Temple Mount were discreetly advised to cool their public campaign.
The Palestinian riots plaguing Jerusalem for months have died down, except for isolated instances, since, as DEBKAfile revealed, Saudi & Gulf funds were funneled to pacify the city’s restive Palestinian neighborhoods.
Cairo & the Gulf emirates have used their influence with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to get him to moderate his invective against Israel & its prime minister, & slow his applications for Palestinian membership of international bodies as platforms for campaigning against the Jewish state.
Concerned by the way the mainstream Arab world was marginalizing the Palestinian question, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal chose his moment Friday – ahead of the White House meeting between the Jordanian monarch & President Obama – to try & re-ignite the flames of violence in Jerusalem. He went unheeded.
Netanyahu may or may not opt to brandish Israel’s diplomatic breakthrough to the Arab world as campaign fodder to boost his run for re-election. Whatever he decides, the rulers of Saudi Arabia, the Arab emirates & Egypt are turning out to have acquired an interest in maintaining him in office as head of the Israeli government, in direct opposition to President Obama’s ambition to unseat him.
7.Israel pleased with Obama’s choice to succeed Hagel as Pentagon chief JPOST
Israeli officials in Jerusalem on Saturday praised US President Barack Obama’s nominee to succeed outgoing Pentagon chief Chuck Hagel.
Obama on Friday named Ashton Carter, a longtime Pentagon aide, to the top post just days after Hagel announced he would be stepping down.
The president said Carter “brings a unique blend of strategic perspective & technical know-how” to the job.
At a small ceremony, Carter told Obama that if he is confirmed by the US Senate, “I pledge to you my most candid strategic advice.”
Carter is considered to be an ardent supporter of Israel who has also enjoyed a close relationship with Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon. The two men met this past July in the Tel Aviv headquarters of the Defense Ministry during Carter’s visit to Israel.
It seems that it wasn’t easy for U.S. President Barack Obama to find a replacement for former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who resigned/was fired. The two senior candidates he approached turned him down — possibly because they were afraid to take on a position that the three previous secretaries (Hagel, Robert Gates, & Leon Panetta) weren’t happy in. Or maybe they just didn’t want to leave their positions to serve in a lame duck administration.
This shouldn’t lead us to conclude that Ashton Carter, the newly nominated defense secretary, is not a worthy appointment or was a last choice; indeed, his previous Pentagon positions — most recently as deputy defense secretary from 2011 to 2013 — indicate that he’s an excellent fit for the difficult & complex missions of the office he’s been chosen to fill. Nevertheless, if Carter wasn’t Obama’s first choice, it could be because of his opinionated character & his more hawkish positions on defense issues.
We know, for example, that Carter — unlike Obama — favors larger defense budgets, & there are other matters on which he departs from the official White House line. Like Panetta, he opposes a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, & when he served in the George W. Bush administration, he pressed unsuccessfully for pre-emptive action against North Korea’s nuclear plans.
“Diplomacy has failed, & we cannot sit by & let this deadly threat mature,” he said at the time. So it isn’t far-fetched to guess that Carter won’t be indifferent to Iranian nuclearization, either. Certain pundits already believe that given Carter’s former stances — which don’t exactly identify with the “Obama doctrine” — if it proves impossible to reach a satisfactory agreement with Iran on its nuclear ambitions, he will support a military response.
Of course, these assessments shouldn’t be taken too far. The new defense secretary certainly took the pluses & minuses of the job into account before accepting Obama’s offer, knowing that in the U.S. system, the president is the commander in chief & the one who ultimately decides matters, including decisions on defense. But when he was considering the job, he couldn’t have ignored the problems & frustrations his predecessors, particularly Hagel, encountered.
Many breakdowns of the Hagel dismissal expressed the opinion that it had less to do with the man himself & more with the internal politics & faulty workings of the White House, & that Hagel was the scapegoat for the complications in the field of defense & foreign policy — including Syria, Iraq, & the fight against the Islamic State group.
As we know, other secretaries in the Obama administration have been displeased with the tendency of White House staff as a whole (whom Thomas Ricks, one of the editors of the prestigious Foreign Policy journal, described as “political hacks — one of the least intellectually diverse groups ever to lead the executive branch”), & National Security Adviser Susan Rice in particular — to interfere with matters & decisions pertaining to their departments. Hagel wasn’t prepared to accept it, & in October sent Rice a memo sharply criticizing the administration’s policy on Syria that said, “We need to have a sharper view of what to do about the Assad regime.” From that moment, the timer started counting down on Hagel’s term.
There are also complaints in the American defense establishment that under Obama, the National Security Agency has begun to take the lead on nearly every matter regarding international disputes, the war on terrorism, & other security issues. Even an editorial in The New York Times, which usually worships the Obama administration, did not refrain from criticizing the president & his security policy as “too often … incoherent & shifting at a time of mounting international challenges.” Only the future will show how the new defense secretary will address these challenges.
The New Republic magazine called Hagel Obama’s “good cop” in the administration’s relations with Israel. Despite concerns at the time of his appointment, he worked tirelessly to tighten cooperation between Washington & Jerusalem on diplomacy & security. It can be hoped that Ashton Carter will continue to do the same.
9.Clinton: US-Israel ties should deepen, intensify
Former US secretary of state & likely 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Friday that the US must intensify & deepen cooperation with its Middle East partners, particularly Israel.
Dismissing the negative press coverage surrounding tensions between the Netanyahu government & the Obama administration, Clinton said that cooperation between Israel & the US over the past six years has been “quite extraordinary.”
“The funding on Iron dome, the funding of other military needs & equipment, the continuing strategic consultation that we’ve been consistently engaged in, no one can argue with the commitment of this administration to Israel’s security,” Clinton declared at the annual Saban Forum in Washington Friday evening.
The Netanyahu-led Israeli government & the Obama administration have often gone head to head, sometimes publicly, over a variety of issues, including disagreements over the ongoing talks with Iran on its nuclear program, continued Israeli settlement activity & perceived Israeli intransigence on peace talks.
Some of the differences have deteriorated into exchanges of name-calling between officials, reports of snubbing & other uncommon behavior between allies.
This includes Israeli government accusations over the summer that US Secretary of State John Kerry was engaging in a ”terrorist” attack on Israel by backing a ceasefire agreement with Hamas that had been shaped by its Qatari backers; Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon calling Kerry “obsessive” & “messianic” on the peace process; & an anonymous Obama administration official telling US journalist Jeffrey Goldberg that Netanyahu’s behavior on the peace process & on Iran was “chickenshit.”
“Regardless of the political back & forth between two raucous democracies,” Clinton said, US-Israel relations must cooperate more closely.
Her remarks came following the announcement Thursday that Congress passed legislation aimed at deepening ties between the two countries in the fields of defense, energy, R&D, business & academics.
Turning to the peace talks between Israel & the Palestinians which collapsed in April after a US-brokered nine-month effort, Clinton said the US & Mideast countries could not just throw up their hands & walk away from efforts to bring the two sides to negotiate an agreement “because you leave a vacuum.”
“There is a necessary imperative to continue to try to achieve a resolution between Israel & the Palestinians,” said Clinton, adding that the Clinton parameters presented by her husband, former president Bill Clinton, were still relevant.
Warning again that the “absence of negotiations leave a vacuum” for extremists & others, she said that “the two-state solution remains an important & essential concept.”
“Efforts that were undertaken in the last several years are very much in the interest of Israel & very much in the interest of the Palestinians,” she said.
Regarding the ongoing negotiations with Iran on its contentious nuclear program, Clinton expressed approval for the international sanctions that were imposed on Tehran for its failure to cooperate.
Talks between Iran & the P5+1 have been extended until next July.
“The international sanctions have had the effect that we’d hoped for on Iran. The extension of the talks will most likely be a period during which the sanctions will hold [until an agreement is reached],” she said.
While she said her view remained one that advocated for no deal rather than a bad deal, “a deal that verifiably closes all of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon — the key there is ‘verifiably’ & ‘all’ including covert efforts — that is what is at the center of these negotiations.”
She added that while the nuclear talks were the most important issue the US was facing vis-a-vis Iran, Washington was also concerned about Tehran’s sponsorship of international terrorism & its backing of Syria’s Bashar Assad in the raging civil war in that country & working with its allies on these issues.
Read more: Clinton: US-Israel ties should deepen, intensify | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/
December 6, 2014
10.Unflattering portrait of Hillary Clinton by the NYT By Ed Lasky
The New York Times published on Saturday a somewhat scathing portrayal of Hillary Clinton by Peter Baker & Amy Chozik, focusing on her time as First Lady. Anger, paranoia, temper-tantrums, ego, ambition — all there & more. The paper points out that she has been peddling a line to her presidential bid that flatters herself as a working mom, juggling the demands of a young daughter & a career while championing women’s rights, supporting her husband during periods of economic growth & enduring withering personal attacks. The reality is far more complicated — & interesting. She was, from an early time, very calculating, & nursed resentments, giving into her anger. Apparently, those stories about temper tantrums were not just the creation of fabulists after all.
Lest we forget before here was Obamacare there was HillaryCare.
Now carefully controlled at 67, then she was fiery & unpredictable, lobbing sarcastic jabs in private meetings & congressional hearings. Now criticized as a centrist & challenged from the left, Mrs. Clinton then was considered the liberal whispering in her husband’s ear to resist the North American Free Trade Agreement & a welfare overhaul. (snip)
She was an independent force within the White House, single-handedly pushing health care onto the agenda & intimidating into silence those who thought she might be mishandling it. She was prone to bouts of anger & nursed deep resentment toward Washington. She endured a terribly complicated relationship with her philandering husband. & yet she was the one who often channeled his energies, steered him toward success & saved him from himself.
“She may have been critical from time to time with temper tantrums & things like that,” said Mr. Nussbaum, who went on to become Mr. Clinton’s first White House counsel. (snip)
But the Clintons were fiercely protective of each other, acting at times as if it were just them against the world. “I remember one time in one of these meetings where she was blowing up about his staff & how we were all incompetent & he was having to be the mechanic & drive the car & do everything — that we weren’t capable of anything, why did he have to do it all himself,” said Joan N. Baggett, an assistant for political affairs.
She also is framed as a political partner of Bill Clinton who was so confident of his & their future that she introduced him to her boss in the early 70s as a future president. She may not have baked cookies at home as she put it back in 1992, but she was forcefully defending him & their joint political future when his worrisome women issue hit the airwaves again & again. The article certainly gives us insights into a politician who is farther to the left than Bill Clinton, who has an inclination to seethe & to vent when confronting critics & opposition. No wonder Barack Obama might have felt some kinship with her.
Well worth reading as her non-campaign campaign gears up for 2016.
Thomas Lifson adds: I see this as the Times realizing she would be a lousy candidate, & signaling Elizabeth Warren, Bill deBlasio & other Dems that she can be Obama’d again in 2016, as she was in 2008.
11.ISIS in Gaza: When One Radical Group Believes Another Is Not Radical Enough by Khaled Abu Toameh http://www.gatestoneinstitute.
Now almost everyone is talking about the Islamic State threats in Gaza against poets, writers & women. The leaflets mention the poets & writers by name — a move that has created panic. The leaflets also include an ultimatum to Palestinian women to abide by Islamic attire or face the Islamic State style of punishment — presumably being stoned to death.
Of course, all this is taking place while Hamas continues to insist that that the Islamic State is not operating in Gaza. Those who are taking the threats seriously are the writers & women whose names appeared in the leaflets.
Islamic State flags can already be seen at football stadiums, on windshields of vehicles, mosques, educational centers & wedding invitations.
It is also clear that if & when the Hamas regime collapses, the Gaza Strip will not fall into the lands of the less-radical Palestinians.
It is important to keep in mind that the counties in Europe now voting for a Palestinian state may effectively be paving the way for a takeover by Islamic State.
It is always dreamlike to see one Islamist terror group accuse the other of being too “lenient” when it comes to enforcing Sharia laws. But it is not dreamlike when a terrorist group starts threatening writers & women.
That is what is happening these days in the Gaza Strip, where supporters of the Islamic State are accusing Hamas of failing to impose strict Islamic laws on the Palestinian population — as if Hamas has thus far endorsed a liberal & open-minded approach toward those who violate Sharia laws.
Until this week, the only topic Palestinians in the Gaza Strip were talking about was how to rebuild homes & buildings that were destroyed during the last war between Hamas & Israel.
Now, however, almost everyone is talking about the Islamic State threats against poets, writers & women.
It is no secret that the Islamic State has a presence in the Gaza Strip. According to sources there, many disgruntled members of Hamas & other radical Salafi-Jihadi groups have already joined the Islamic State, with some fighting together with ISIS groups in Syria & Iraq.
Earlier this year, it was revealed here that Islamic State has already begun operating inside the Gaza Strip — much to the dismay of Hamas.
Hamas, nevertheless, continues to deny any presence of Islamic State inside the Gaza Strip. “There are no members of Islamic State in the Gaza Strip,” said Eyad al-Bazam, spokesman for the Hamas-run Interior Ministry.
Many Palestinians, however, do not seem to take Hamas’s denials seriously, & remain unconvinced.
Over the past few days, two separate leaflets signed by Islamic State threatened to target Palestinian poets & writers for their “wantonness” & “atheism.” The leaflets mention the poets & writers by name — a move that created panic among many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
The leaflets also included an ultimatum to Palestinian women to abide by Islamic attire or face the Islamic State style of punishment — presumably being stoned to death. The threat leaves one with the false impression that, under Hamas, women can wear swimming suits at the beach & walk around the streets of Gaza City in mini-skirts.
But this is what happens when one fundamentalist group believes that the other is not radical enough.
“We warn the writers & poets of their wanton sayings & atheist deeds,” one of the leaflets read. “We give the apostates three days to retract their apostasy & wantonness & enter the religion of Islam anew.”
The threats issued by Islamic State have drawn strong condemnations from many Palestinians. This is the first time that such threats have been made against poets & writers or women.
Although Hamas has denied any connection to the threats, Fatah officials in the West Bank were quick to accuse the Islamist movement — which has been in control of the Gaza Strip since 2007 — of being behind the leaflets.
Palestinian political analyst Naji Sharab explained that any attempt to deny the presence of Islamic State terrorists in the Gaza Strip was “unrealistic.”
“There’s no denying that Islamic State exists [in the Gaza Strip] as a small group or as individuals,” he said. “The leaflets that were distributed this week could not have come from any Palestinian organization.”
Palestinians point out that the two leaflets were not the only sign of the presence of Islamic State inside the Gaza Strip. They say that Islamic State flags can be seen in many parts of the Gaza Strip, especially at football stadiums & public buildings. In addition, Islamic State stickers can be seen on the windshields of many vehicles.
More recently, Palestinians say, families have begun attaching the Islamic State emblem to wedding invitations sent out to friends & relatives. Photos of Palestinians who were killed while fighting with Islamic State in Iraq & Syria appear in many places, especially mosques & educational centers.
Of course, all of this is taking place while Hamas continues to insist that the Islamic State is not operating in Gaza.
Those who are taking the threats seriously are the women & writers whose names appeared in the leaflets.
Amal Hamad, a member of the Palestinian Women’s Union, expressed deep concern about the threats made by Islamic State. “We are headed toward the worst in the Gaza Strip,” she complained. “We hold the Hamas security forces responsible for the leaflets of intimidation & terror.” She & a large group of women in the Gaza Strip held an emergency meeting to discuss the repercussions of the threats.
Judging from reactions, it is clear that many Palestinians — including Hamas — are extremely worried about Islamic State’s presence in the Gaza Strip. Even if the terror group still does not have many fighters in the Gaza Strip, it already has countless followers & admirers.
It is also clear that if & when the Hamas regime collapses, the Gaza Strip will not fall into the hands of less-radical Palestinians.
The Gaza Strip has already been turned into an “Islamist Emirate” that is run by Hamas & other radical groups such as Islamic Jihad.
While Islamic State may have succeeded in infiltrating the Gaza Strip, its chances of entering the West Bank are zero. This is thanks to the presence of the Israel Defense Forces [IDF] in the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority & its President Mahmoud Abbas are well aware that without the Israeli security presence in the West Bank, the area would easily fall into the hands of Hamas or Islamic State.
It is important to keep in mind that the countries in Europe now voting for a Palestinian state may effectively be paving the way for a takeover by Islamic State.
12. UK: Britain’s Terror Addiction by Samuel Westrop http://www.gatestoneinstitute.
Debates over the causes of radicalization & extremism in Britain invariably focus on how to tackle support for groups such as ISIS & Al Qaeda. But why is it that Hamas & PFLP are deemed moderate regardless of how many civilians they murder?
“God be praised for the martyrdom operation in Jerusalem & news of the state of the killed & injured.” — Interpal partner Ahmed Brahimi, in response to the murder of Israeli Jews praying in a synagogue.
The response to the murder of four Israelis praying at a synagogue in Jerusalem on November 18 was, in some quarters, one of jubilation.
Although Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas condemned the murders, officials of his political party, Fatah, were careful to explain on Palestinian television that the terrorists were “blessed…soldiers of Allah” & that Abbas had only issued a condemnation for “diplomatic reasons… [he] is forced to speak this way to the world.”
Other Palestinian groups were less oblique. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which claimed responsibility for the murderous attack, described the terror operation as “heroic” & handed out sweets on the streets of Gaza.
In Britain, it is not the equivocal response of Fatah that draws sympathy from various political & religious groups, but the forthright violence of Hamas & the PFLP.
On September 28, a British Marxist group, the “Tricontinental Anti-Imperialist Platform,” organized in central London an event entitled, “Gaza & the Palestinian Revolution,” featuring, as its main speaker, Leila Khaled.
In 1969 & 1970, Leila Khaled, armed with several hand grenades, hijacked two planes. She was released by the British government as part of a hostage exchange deal. Today, Khaled is still a member of the PFLP’s central committee.
In 2012, Khaled spoke at University College London, as part of the annual Marxism Festival, an event organized to celebrate “resistance” to “imperialism.”
Not all support for the PFLP, however, is confined to the extremes. Christian Aid, one of the UK’s largest charities, funds & supports Palestinian NGOs openly managed by PFLP operatives.
British groups & individuals who support Hamas are even more extreme. An official of the Project for Peace & Development in Palestine (PPDP), a group founded in Britain & a key partner of the British charity Interpal, recently rejoiced over the recent murders in Jerusalem. In response to the synagogue killings, Ahmed Brahimi wrote: “God is most great… God be praised for the martyrdom operation in Jerusalem & news of the state of the killed & injured… God is Most Great & God be praised.”
Brahimi is an Algerian national who took part in the “Gaza Freedom Flotilla” in 2010 as a passenger aboard the Mavi Marmara, which was raided by Israeli forces. His organization, the PPDP, was officially established in Britain in 2007. It held its inaugural event at the British Library in London.
The event was organized by Interpal & a number of other British Islamic charities accused of belonging to the Union of Good — a coalition of charities that works to obtain the financial support for Hamas’s political & terrorist activities. The British Library event, however, did not mark the actual beginning of the PPDP. The group originally seems to have been a project managed by Interpal itself, which was in operation as early as 2004.
Interpal, a leading British Islamic charity, is designated as a terrorist organization under US law. Interpal’s officials regularly meet with senior Hamas leaders. In 2006, a BBC documentary accused Interpal of funding Hamas front groups in the Palestinian territories. Notwithstanding the evidence, Interpal received £536,000 of taxpayers’ money from the British government in 2012 through a tax relief scheme named Gift Aid.
Today, the PPDP, which operates out of Gaza, maintains an office & bank account in the UK through which it privately raises funds.
Directors listed on the PPDP’s registered company in the UK include Interpal trustee Essam Yousef. Moreover, the PPDP does not attempt to hide its affiliations – it has its own weekly program on one of Hamas’s television channels, Al-Quds TV.
While officially, the PPDP provides loans & grants to help “empower young people & help reduce unemployment through education,” its main role is to finance & manage the Miles of Smiles initiative, a regular expedition of convoys established in 2007.
Miles of Smiles supplies the Hamas government’s welfare programs in Gaza. The convoys are supported by the Union of Good, but are chiefly organized by the PPDP & senior Interpal trustees. Several times a year, Ahmed Brahimi & Interpal trustee Essam Yousef lead the convoys into Gaza, where they are welcomed by senior Hamas leaders.
The PPDP’s Ahmed Brahimi has previously expressed support for murdering Jews. On November 5, for instance, after the Palestinian terrorist Ibrahim Akari drove his car into a group of Israeli citizens – killing one & injuring twenty — Brahimi exclaimed: “This hero, this lion, this son of Islam who took vengeance for Al-Aqsa with his spirit & with his blood… with the operation to kill pigs [Jews].”
In Britain, declarations of disgust for specific acts of terrorism often seem designed merely to shroud tolerance for pro-terror views. The Guardian, for example, condemned the synagogue murders in Israel & described Hamas’s celebrations of the attacks as “depressing”; but a mere four days before the terror attack, the newspaper published an opinion piece by Hamas official Ahmed Yousef, which set out to defend the Hamas charter, a document that explicitly calls for the eradication of not only Israelis but Jews.
Meanwhile, Ahmed Brahimi’s PPDP has entertained members of the House of Lords; Interpal enjoys the support of parliamentary motions signed by dozens of British MPs & is painted as a victim of Islamophobia by prominent newspaper journalists; & the PFLP, addressing crowds of supporters in London, is considered a heroic bulwark against Western “imperialism.”
Debates between politicians & commentators over the causes of radicalization & extremism in Britain invariably focus on how to tackle support for groups such as ISIS & Al Qaeda. But why is it that Hamas & PFLP are deemed moderate, regardless of how many civilians they murder?
One enormous factor in the spread of Islamic extremism surely must be the networks of charities that seem to support Palestinian terrorist organizations – networks that include groups such as Interpal & the PPDP. Will these organizations ever be shut down?
13.Turkish Hospitality For Arab Terrorism by Burak Bekdil http://www.gatestoneinstitute.
Erdogan deliberately overlooked a significant difference between Hamas & Turkey’s Islamist parties: Hamas specifically advocates violence, while Turkish parties operate within democratic politics.
Hamas is coordinating its efforts in the West Bank with logistical support from a command center in Istanbul.
In 2004, Turkish President (then Prime Minister) Recep Tayyip Erdogan labeled Israel “a terrorist state.” Two years later, he hosted Khaled Mashaal, Hamas’s leader. Alluding to Turkey’s experience with Islamist parties, including his own, coming to power through elections, Erdogan said: “The choice of the people (at the ballot box) should be respected.” Erdogan, citing Hamas’s election victory in Gaza, apparently wanted to legitimize Hamas & terrorism.
However, he deliberately overlooked a significant difference between Hamas & Turkey’s Islamist parties: Hamas specifically advocates violence, while Turkish parties operate within democratic politics.
Eight years after Mashaal’s visit to Turkey, Hamas is coordinating its efforts in the West Bank with logistical support from a command center in Istanbul — a fact that apparently annoys even the Palestinian Authority [PA], Hamas’s “governing partner” in the Palestinian territories.
Turkey is also host to Salah al-Aruri, a Hamas commander whom the PA accuses of planning multiple attacks against Israeli targets.
According to the Israeli media, the Shin Bet has evidence that the deadly attacks against Israelis were planned at the Hamas headquarters in Istanbul. Turkish diplomats deny the claims, unconvincingly. Israel has reportedly requested NATO & the American government to take steps against Turkey’s support for a terrorist organization.
It was, in fact, Aruri who, on Aug. 20, speaking at the World Conference of Islamic Sages in Turkey, admitted that Hamas had instigated the “heroic action carried out by the al-Qassam Brigades [the military wing of Hamas], which captured three settlers in Hebron.” The three teenage boys were kidnapped & murdered by Hamas operatives, an incident that triggered the spiral of violence that led to the vicious 50-day war in Gaza this summer.
Most Western observers tend to explain Erdogan’s love affair with Hamas with realpolitik & pragmatism – that Turkey has sought regional clout among Arab nations by setting out to become the powerful defender of the “Palestinian cause.” This author thinks that there is also “a story of indoctrination” behind the love affair.
One of the most influential philosophers & writers who inspired a young generation of Turkish Islamists in the late 1960s & early 1970s was Nurettin Topcu (1909-1975). His writings greatly influenced an emerging class of Turkish jihadists who gathered under the umbrella of the Turkish National Student Union (MTTB, in its Turkish acronym). Topcu’s & other thinkers’ theories founded what would later become known as the “Turkish-Islamic synthesis,” or simply Turkish political Islam. In Topcu’s views, “Islam is a Turk’s spirit/heart & Turkishness his body.” One of MTTB’s most enthusiastic members of was Erdogan.
In a 2010 speech, Erdogan referred to Topcu, along with half a dozen other writers, as a “great thinker.” In the same year, in another speech, Erdogan said that Topcu was “the mirror of this country.” More recently, in an interview, Erdogan counted 11 names as the greatest writers in Ottoman & Turkish history.” One of them was Topcu.
Today there is a cultural center & a number of primary schools, including in Ankara & Istanbul, which proudly carry the philosopher’s name. This year, a deputy minister inaugurated a political school named Nurettin Topcu. Only last week, government bigwigs & bureaucrats organized a panel discussion on “Nurettin Topcu the Master & Our Education Cause.”
But what makes the Sorbonne-graduate Turkish philosopher & his views so dear to the hearts & minds of Turkish leaders? Shortly after the Six-Day War in 1967, Topcu published three essays: “The Islamic Cause & Judaism,” “Money & the Jew,” & “Human Beings & Jews.”
A pro-Erdogan newspaper columnist, Ibrahim Tenekeci, wrote in his column for the government-friendly Yeni Safak daily earlier this year: “[Topcu’s 1967 writings] reflected a Muslim’s rage… a noble challenge, an honourable stance.” But what were the teachings of one of the Turkish president’s favorite thinkers?
From Topcu’s “Money & the Jew:”
“Mankind has two enemies, two Satans: money & the Jew.”
From his “The Islamic Cause & Judaism:”
“As long as [the state of] Israel stands there, the Turkish & Islamic worlds will be in danger. The future belongs to either one (Israel) or the other (the Turkish & Islamic worlds).”
From his “Human Beings & Jews:”
“Jews are… the eternal ordeal of mankind; they are the bloody & sinful hands…
“The Jewish nation was sent to the world in order to destroy every beauty, every solid foundation & every redemptive fact. To do harm to human beings & humanity is almost a Jewish instinct.”
Topcu does not say “who” sent Jews to the world to do all the harm to mankind, or why. But apparently the 70s generation of Turkish Islamists have taken his theories too seriously.
Yes, President Erdogan is a pragmatic politician. But not always. Especially when his pragmatic-self meets with his emotional-self: That’s heaven! Still wondering about his passionate love affair with Hamas? Read Topcu’s excerpts once again. Then open up Hamas’s charter, read the caricature-like text & compare its lines with the Turkish philosopher’s. Now you can have a better reading of Erdogan’s mind.
FREEMAN CENTER BROADCAST DECEMBER 5, 2014
For Zion’s sake I will not hold my peace & for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest.” Isaiah 62.
FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES P.O. Box 35661 * Houston, Texas 77235-5661 *
The elections offer the voter a choice between the delusional Left & the incompetent Right.
Popularity should be no scale for the election of politicians. If it would depend on popularity, Donald Duck & The Muppets would take seats in [the legislature] – Orson Welles
Elections are won… chiefly because most people vote against somebody rather than for somebody – Franklin Pierce Adams
This Wednesday, the inevitable happened. The improbable coalition, cobbled together out of irreconcilably disparate components, finally disintegrated.
The disintegration of the coalition was virtually inevitable from the moment it was formed. From the get-go, it was the product of the puerile petulance of its principal participants & the perverse partnerships that this produced.
But even more fundamentally, the fatal friability of the coalition can be traced back to the pathetically poor electoral campaign run by Benjamin Netanyahu & the Likud, in which almost every conceivable mistake was made: from purposefully refraining from presenting a policy platform to voters, essentially asking for support without stipulating what the support was for; through the predictably ill-fated union with Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu faction that, inevitably, reduced support for the combined electoral entity, to the needless attacks on Naftali Bennett, driving undecided voters to support neophyte Yair Lapid.
Thus, while at the start of the campaign for the last elections, most pundits widely predicted a decisive win for Netanyahu & the Right, the gross ineptitude with which the campaign was subsequently conducted led to severe erosion of voter support for the joint Likud-Beytenu list, which almost resulted in it snatching defeat from the jaws of certain victory.
Consequently, a dramatically weakened Netanyahu, faced by a recalcitrant alliance of Bennett-Lapid, found his options drastically reduced. To begin the process of building his government, he was virtually coerced into including the ideologically antagonistic Tzipi Livni to be the first to join the coalition, appointing her to the critical position of justice minister & giving her responsibility for the negotiations with the Palestinians.
This ensured the implausibility of the coalition & virtually guaranteed its rapid demise.
There is little prospect that the coming elections will break the ideological deadlock that has hog-tied the Israeli political system for almost two decades.
The ineffectual performance of successive governments & their evident inability to overcome the growing sense of strategic impasse has led to a grave loss of public faith in the political process.
This is perhaps best gauged by the steep decline in voter turnout over the years – from almost 80 percent throughout the 1980s up until the late ’90s, to barely 60% in the last three elections.
There seems to be a burgeoning disconnect between the gravity of the problems facing the nation, & the lack of gravitas of politicians, seeking office to deal with them; a widening chasm between the profound complexity of the issues to be dealt with, & the shallow simplicity of the proposals advanced to deal with them.
This has resulted in deepening feelings of alienation, cynicism & despair as to the future, & on the futility of trying to effect change by means of the ballot box. One of the most worrying manifestations of these sentiments is the increasing numbers of Israelis seeking to acquire foreign passports, signaling a lack of confidence in the elected leaders’ ability to secure their future – both as individuals & as part of the national collective.
In an attempt to convey the frustration with the dysfunctional operation & diminishing legitimacy of the political system, Prof. Oz Almog penned a widely publicized article this week, with an impassioned call for voters to rebel, & boycott the coming elections. Although it is clearly possible to dispute the prudence & practicality of such a plea, it serves to underscore the sense of foreboding of an impending implosion of the political system.
As a rule I disagree – vehemently – with almost everything Gershon Baskin writes in his column “Encountering Peace.” However, in his latest effort, “Our future is in our hands” (December 3), he does manage to get one thing right. The pivotal issue on the agenda in the elections will – or at least, should – be the Palestinian issue, & particularly whether large-scale territorial withdrawal will be conducted to facilitate the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea-Samaria.
The Palestinian issue impacts nearly every area of life in Israel & until there is a rational & sustainable blueprint of how to deal with it, it will not be possible to arrive at a rational & sustainable blueprint for how to manage the overall affairs of the nation.
The ramifications of the manner in which one envisions the outcome of the Palestinian issue extend far beyond the sphere of security & foreign policy. As I pointed out at the last Jerusalem Post Conference in New York, they affect almost every socioeconomic matter on the national agenda.
It will affect the distribution & cost of housing, which will be dramatically influenced by whether residential construction is permitted across the pre-1967 lines.
It will affect Israel’s air traffic & land (road & rail) transport system, depending on who controls the slopes overlooking Ben-Gurion Airport & the land abutting major highways & rail links.
It will affect environmental management within the pre-1967 lines, & the ability to contend with vital issues such as sewage flows, carcinogenic emissions from charcoal production, industrial effluents & agricultural runoffs, depending on who has the authority/ability to regulate them.
It will affect the capacity to combat & contain transmissible diseases such as rabies & water-borne afflictions, depending on who has the authority/ability to mandate inoculations, effect quarantines, administer treatment & so on.
This is a decidedly abbreviated list of seldom-raised topics that would be crucially – & detrimentally – impacted by withdrawing Israeli administration from areas across the Green Line.
To these we must add the economic consequences such a move would have – including the cost of removing & resettling hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens, who would have to be evacuated from their communities to facilitate the Judenrein state the Palestinians demand. We would have to add the staggering additions to the defense budget that would be required to cope with the new realties such measures would necessarily entail.
The fighting this summer in Gaza, particularly the threat of short-range mortars & attack tunnels, vividly brought home the significance of a 50-km. border abutting our remote, thinly populated, rural South – even when there was no topographical superiority involved.
It takes little imagination to grasp the significance of a 500-km. border abutting our heavily populated urban central region, dominated topographically from the east, with Israel’s only international airport within easy mortar range & the Trans-Israel Highway within easy tunnel reach.
Given the fact that every time Israel has relinquished territory to Arab control, it has, without exception – albeit with varying rates of rapidity – become a source of attacks against Israel, one would expect that advocating withdrawal of additional territory – especially territory as vital as Judea-Samaria – would be electoral suicide.
However, bizarre as it may appear, this is not the case.
Numerous parties on the so-called Left will try & convince voters that what has failed disastrously in the past will somehow mysteriously succeed today, even though current conditions are far less benign.
Even more bizarrely, none of these wildly optimistic parties offers – or even feel any obligation to offer – any plausible Plan B should what happened in past repeat itself. After all, the prospect of such a dire contingency can no longer be haughtily dismissed as “Right-wing scaremongering” – for it is no more than the empirical precedent.
One of the most infuriating & enduring enigmas of Israeli politics is that although the Left’s dangerously delusional doctrine – or rather, dogma – of Palestinian statehood & its corollary of land-for-peace has been decisively disproved, it is somehow never discredited, & certainly never discarded.
There can be no more abiding testimony to the hopeless incompetence of the political Right, which despite all its caveats & its criticism being indisputably vindicated, has been unable to vanquish its political adversaries, & consign their preposterous political prescription to the trash pile of history, with all the scorn it so richly deserves.
There are at least two – arguably interrelated – reasons for this.
The first is that the political Right has refrained from formulating & promoting a cogent, comprehensive & convincing alternative to the two-states-for-two-peoples principle (or the default option of a one-state-for-all-its-
The other is the dismaying dereliction of duty in the conduct of its public diplomacy – both domestically & abroad – a debacle which can presumably be linked to the above-mentioned lack of an adequate alternative.
As disastrous as the delusions of Left are, the alternatives proffered by the Right are, if anything, even more dangerous & detrimental. Not everything that is not “two states” is necessarily preferable to it. I have dealt with the detrimental defects of most of the more common “alternatives” proposed by the Right in some detail elsewhere (see for example “What’s wrong with the Right,” Parts 1 & 2, August 16 & 23, 2012).
In the coming elections, two of these are likely to be of relevance: (a) The idea of managing, rather than resolving, the conflict, which seems to be what the Likud is likely to adopt; & (b) the partial annexation of Judea-Samaria (i.e. of the dominantly Jewish-populated Area C) advanced by Bayit Yehudi’s Naftali Bennett.
To these we may have to add Avigdor Liberman’s newly touted proposal of land swaps & economic incentives for Israeli Arabs to move to the envisioned Palestinian state.
All of these proposals are poorly conceived & have little chance of becoming a serious alternative to the two-state paradigm, & I will engage in a more detailed analysis of their glaring defects in subsequent columns as the elections approach.
Suffice to say at this stage, “managing the conflict” is little more than a euphemism for “copping out,” in the vain hope that if we do nothing, things will somehow work themselves out.
Regrettably this is demonstrably incorrect. The status quo is not sustainable & is continuously deteriorating for Israel – as the recent votes in ever-increasing numbers of European parliaments in favor of unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood starkly underscore.
It is almost self-evident that if you don’t have a destination, you can’t reach it. Similarly, if the Right does not specify a preferred mode of resolving (rather than “managing” – read “preserving”) the conflict, it cannot garner support – foreign or domestic – for its position over that of the Left.
The Bennett proposal for annexation of Area C alone, for all its superficial appeal, is, as I have pointed out previously, a measure that solves none of the existing problems & exacerbates many. It will entail a border of well over 1,000 km. for Israel sovereign territory, which will have to be demarcated & secured for that sovereignty to have any significance. It will leave Israel to explain to the world what the plan is for 90% of the Arab inhabitants in the residual Areas A & B, encapsulated, in stateless political suspension, in 40% of the territory, in disconnected enclaves & corridors.
Liberman’s proposal as recently published is hardly a right-wing alternative, & has little merit in its own right.
For not only does it entail the establishment of a Palestinian state, it involves land swaps, which are likely to make the border between it & sovereign Israel even longer & more tortuous than the pre-1967 lines.
Moreover, Liberman adopts the idea of using economic incentives to induce Arab migration. But he does so precisely in the wrong direction.
Instead of offering financial inducements to the Arabs of Judea-Samaria to seek a better life elsewhere, he suggests offering Israeli Arabs financial inducements to seek a presumably much worse life in Judea-Samaria under some future Arab regime.
In effect, Liberman is proposing that Israeli Arabs leave a prosperous democratic state, where GDP per capita is approaching $40,000, & move to an impoverished tyranny, where the GDP per capita is under $2,000. Gee, that should work.
One of the most remarkable & recurring phenomena in Israeli politics is that right-wing parties running on hawkish platforms have regularly won elections, but, on winning, adopt the failed policies of their dovish left-wing rivals who were rejected at the polls.
Thus, the electorate ends up with precisely what it voted to reject. This, in effect, empties the democratic process of any significance, which in itself should be a matter of grave concern.
In this column I have hinted at some of the reasons for this. In coming columns, I will elaborate on why the Right keeps winning elections but never really gets into power; & why the Left does not need electoral success to impose its worldview on political realities.
These issues have profound importance for the future of Israeli democracy.
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.org) is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. www.strategicisrael.org
15.Saban Forum becomes an elections forum
The Brookings Institute’s Center for Middle East Policy holds 11th annual Saban Forum to discuss Israel’s relationship with the United States • Journalists, Israeli politicians are more interested in possible early elections than Israel-U.S. relations.
By Boaz Bismuth
The annual Saban Forum of the Brookings Institute’s Center for Middle East Policy, which is set to close on Sunday in Washington, featured Israeli leaders from across the political spectrum, bringing election tension to the United States.
While U.S.-Israel relations & the Mideast peace process took center stage, the 11th annual Saban Forum also brought Labor Chairman Isaac Herzog, Hatnuah Chairwoman Tzipi Livni & Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennett together for an entire weekend.
The three politicians were physically in Washington, but their minds were in Israel, thinking about the upcoming elections. Just imagine if Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Yesh Atid Chairman Yair Lapid, Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz & Likud MK Tzachi Hanegbi had been there — the Saban Forum would’ve become an elections forum.
Haim Saban would have done well to give each guest a calculator along with the along with the elegant folios they received. For most of the day, the politicians & journalists & were doing the math to figure out what the outcome of the elections will be. Sources close to Herzog & Livni tried to prove that victory was possible among the Center-Left constituents, but most Israelis vote towards the Right. Sources close to Bennett figured the math just wasn’t right. But both sides agree on one thing: Elections have to come before anything else. Until the official decision to disband the Knesset, which is expected on Monday, both sides prefer to tread carefully. Even if deals have been made, those involved prefer to keep them under wraps.
On Friday, when Herzog spoke to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, you could sense the approaching elections, scheduled for March 17 (though, on Saturday evening, the tune suddenly changed & now it sounds like the disbanding of the Knesset may be postponed). [GW: It wasn’t postponed.]
The American participants had trouble following the elections buzz. On Friday, they didn’t even understand why Israel is headed towards early elections, & on Saturday there was talk around Herzog, Livni & Bennett that perhaps elections could be avoided if Lieberman agreed to partner with the ultra-Orthodox parties.
Former Kadima MK Yohanan Plesner, who was also taking part in the forum, was not surprised by the talk & the rumors: “I saw this already in 2012 with the agreement between Bibi [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] & [then Opposition Leader Shaul] Mofaz, so why shouldn’t it happen again?”
You can’t really say that these elections are shocking. Too many politicians have too much to lose. & for those who have nothing to lose, it might be worth waiting. Perhaps that explains the attitude in Washington.
The senior American officials who were at the forum, including Vice President Joe Biden (Democrat), Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican) & former Secretary of State & possible future presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, all said that no matter who won in the elections, the relationship between Israel & the U.S. wouldn’t change & America would always be committed to Israel’s security.
They also stressed that the United States would not get involved in Israeli elections. That is justified — the world is already complicated enough for the Americans, why should they take on more stress?
Netanyahu is scheduled to speak at the forum via satellite on Sunday. If he were in Washington on Saturday, he would have seen how his political rivals were bashing him & blaming him for damaging the relationship between Israel & the U.S., & yet the Americans — yes, the Americans (Biden & Graham) — were complimenting him.
Biden even said at one point, “Bibi… I love you.” Who would believe that Obama’s vice president would give Netanyahu his next election slogan — that is, if there are elections at all.
16.Speaking Up About Islam in Indiana from CITIZEN WARRIOR
Posted: 04 Dec 2014 05:30 PM PST
For this past year, a number of people across the U.S. were organized to review textbooks up for adoption in Texas. The total number of books reviewed by this group was 32 high school and/or middle school textbooks. Cumulatively TTT (Truth in Texas Textbooks) reviewers compiled 469 pages of factual errors, imbalanced presentation of materials, omission of information, opinions disguised as facts & additionally questions found in the teachers’ editions that are considered “agenda building” or “leading questions” to conclusions not supported by facts. The evaluations have now been posted on a public website — truthintexastextbooks.com.
The excellent letter by Marilyn Dudley in the Nov. 18 Tribune-Star points out the political nature of Islam as it is today, unreformed & based on the Quran, Hadith & Sira. The current unreformed state of Islam prevents Muslims from coexisting peacefully with people of other cultures & religions.
17.Alinskyites or Patriots? By Joe David
Americans responded to their realization that they were being had by left-wing spins & voted in a Republican Congress.
Published: Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com Sunday, December 07, 2014 7:43 AM
Joe David is the author of six books. His controversial new novel, The Infidels, a moving story about the World War I genocide against Christians led by the Ottoman Turks. A long-time critic of our schools, he has also written three books on education, The Fire Within. Glad You Asked! & Teacher of the Year
True revolutionaries, according to Saul Alinsky, must conceal their radicalism with a conforming appearance & attitude & a disguised intent. This enables them to infiltrate the mainstream & bring about change without notice. In America, it has taken many years of covert infiltrating to change the character of the establishment (to what I identify in my article, The Corrupters).
Today, the result are apparent everywhere. The crown jewel is the election (not once, but twice) of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States.
For too long, Americans have innocently accepted the handsomely packaged lies, offered to them by the rising new establishment without examining the content. After six years of Obama’s leadership, the public has finally been able to strip away the fine wrappings & view the gift. What they have uncovered is a burgeoning welfare state that is consuming their resources at an alarming rate & an oversized government that is robbing them of their constitutional rights.
Concerned, they responded in November, not like anarchists, but like citizens. The lies & deceptions fed to them with oftentimes clever & sometimes ludicrous spins by left-wing members of government & the media was no longer able to influence their decisions negatively. To repair Obama’s damage, they elected a Republican Congress.
It is imperative one remember that journalists artfully inject their opinion & bias into all their reports.
Obama immediately declared war against the Republican-dominated Congress by signing an executive order to give amnesty to illegal immigrants already in the country. His actions, designed to flex his muscle, was intended to force Congress to either submit to him or confront him next year. To alert Congress to what can happen, if it becomes confrontational, his administration with the cooperation of the media has inflamed racial riots & demonstrations around the country.
Most Americans believe his administration has taken the country to the breaking point with its divisive decisions, its systematic shattering of relationships with long-time friends, & its commitment to a reckless spending spree that is bankrupting the country.
Worse, if it anything can be worse than that, is his administration’s war policies, which have contributed to millions of non-Muslims in the Middle East to be slaughtered or “relocated.” Obama’s disregard for peace has become so obvious that many are asking the president to return the Nobel Peace Prize, which was foolishly awarded to him in 2009 for uttering a few eloquently empty words supporting peace.
On top of that, Obama’s reign has left the country with its share of scandals, which the left-wing media has diligently tried to cover up. When reviewing the stories about these scandals in different publications, it is imperative one remember that journalists artfully inject their opinion & bias into all their reports. The facts can only be found, when provided, after considerable digging through layers of tiresome commentaries, carefully manufactured to confuse the reader. Below is a list of some of the scandals that have come to light in recent years.
· ·NSA Scandal under Obama – The national Security Agency has gained international attention (thanks to Edward Snowden) for spying on hundreds of millions of people around the world (including Americans) without any domestic or international constraint. By tapping into their electronic & telephone communications, the Obama administration has wrecked its credibility by shamelessly continuing a practice that began with President George Bush.
· Fast & Furious Scandal – Obama’s administration has been implicated in a clandestine operation in which guns have been generously provided to Mexican drug-cartels for criminal activities. When the House of Representatives requested Attorney General Eric Holder to release relevant records, he refused & was held in contempt. To obtain the records, Judicial Watch had to sue for its release. Holder’s recent decision to “retire” may be attributed to this scandal. (2009)
· The IRS Scandal – In 2013 it became public that the IRS had targeted almost exclusively conservative groups for intensive investigation for seeking tax emption status – before the presidential 2012 election. A former IRS executive was held in contempt by the House of Representatives when she refused to answer questions about the scandal. Apparently 30,000 emails pertaining to the investigation were lost, but were suddenly found five months later after some “searching.” (between 2010 & 2012)
· Hot Mic Slip – Before his second election, Obama in a coded conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev got caught accidentally on tape saying: “He’ll have more flexibility ‘after my election’ for negotiations on issues like missile defense” with Russia. (2012)
· Benghazi Attack – The U.S. Ambassador. J. Christopher Stevens was savagely murdered during an attack of the U.S. Special Mission Facility in Benghazi. (Several others were also killed & many more injured.) Two major questions loom: Why didn’t the Obama Administration provide the Ambassador with the backup support requested before the attack? Was the CIA in Benghazi really running arms to terrorists in Syria? (2012)
· Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl – The President sidestepped Congress & exchanged one American prisoner, Bowe Bergdahl, held by the Taliban in Afghanistan, for five senior & hardened Taliban leaders, held in the U.S. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison. Bergdahl is believed to have deserted his military post in Afghanistan & voluntarily joined the Taliban side. (2014)
· Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants – Obama is provoking Congress by using his executive order inappropriately to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, against the will of the majority of the country. To compound anger, he has provided businesses with $3,000 incentives to hire such illegals over native-born workers. (2014)
· Johnathan Gruber – Gruber was hired by the administration as an advisor for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The MIT economics professor became famous overnight for some comments made in 2013 on video, referring to “the stupidity of the American voter” for allowing this bill to be passed, which they would never had passed if they understood the content. This & other such comments have resulted in him being called to testify before a congressional panel. From the beginning, Obamacare has been seen as a controversial health care plan, conceived to wreck America’s widely respected health care system & create a subsidy program in which billions of dollars are given to insurance companies, without providing noteworthy benefits to patients. (2014)
· Ferguson – Despite the threat of rioting in the black community & of aggressive federal investigation by Attorney General Eric Holder, the jurors bravely delivered a non-guilty verdict to a police officer who shot an unarmed black teenager. Two questions linger, as a result of the riots that followed: Why was the National Guard not present as promised on the first night of the riots? & why was the verdict of the grand jury released in the evening, when it was easier for looters & rioters to conceal their identity in the darkness? (2014)
Any one of the above scandals under a Republican presidency would have been sufficient for intensive investigation by an aggressive media. But because such lawlessness is perpetrated by a democrat, the mainstream media isn’t given these scandals any serious consideration. Therefore, the responsibility of investigating them now falls in the hands of the newly elected Congress.
This raises a very important question. Are Republicans morally cleaner than the Democrats, or are they made of the same waste? How the new Republican Congress uses it power to address years of Obamanation will identify the answer.