New Year's Eve and a fast day? Tonight starts Tenth of Tevet (Hebrew: עשרה בטבת, Asarah BeTevet), the tenth day of the Hebrew month of Tevet, is a fast day in Judaism. It is one of the minor fasts observed from before dawn to nightfall. The fast commemorates the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylonia—an event that began on that date and ultimately culminated in the destruction of Solomon's Temple (the First Temple) and the conquest of the Kingdom of Judah (today southern Israel).
Why commemorate the beginning of the siege? it is a reminder to look at the root causes and beginnings of disaster. The result 9th of Av in 586 BCE, 18 months later, was the destruction of the Temple. We face many grave challenges today : jihadism on the upswing, a US President desperate to make a deal with the devil (Iran), many Jews so naive as to think deals can be made with the devil of Abbas and Hamas, and much more. In our revelry tonight for the New Year, let us also somberly reflect on REAL history. The ancient Iraqi's besieged Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. Isis is now on Israel's north and south borders, Iranian soldiers were photographed on the Lebanese border this week, barbarian terrorist Abbas, director of daily war crimes, has the chutzpah to try and join International criminal court to falsely accuse Israel of war crimes, and on and on. The messiah is not yet here. Stand up against evil and for the good.
A video and text blog explaining why a Palestinian state would be a disaster by rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
barbarism examples of some of today's Muslims
Barbarity of many modern Arab and Iranian Muslims
Dec. 25 BREAKING: An 11-year-old girl
was seriously injured in a firebomb attack in the West Bank.The girl and her
father were driving through the West Bank when their car was struck by a
Molotov cocktail. The IDF is currently searching for the perpetrators.
NYPD cop killer worked for Hamas-linked Islamic Society of North
America,” Jihadwatch, December 23, 2014More indication that Ismaaiyl
Abdullah-Muhammad, aka Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, was indeed intending to
“strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (Qur’an 8:60) when he
shot NYPD cops Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Report-Palestinian-stabs-two-police-officers-in-Jerusalems-Old-City-385831
Palestine would be a corrupt, barbaric, genocidal, evil terrorist nation
Palestine would be a corrupt, barbaric, genocidal, evil terrorist nation
How can any decent person think peace with Palestinians is possible?
Liberman: Even a “deaf, blind and mute judge” knows that the Palestinians are responsible for the “indiscriminate murder of men, women, children and babies for the last 100 years. The Palestinian authority, supposedly the moderates, are equally as barbaric. Fatah are barbaric, corrupt, genocidal terrorists. This is a paradigmatic example:
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/WATCH-Palestinian-instructional-video-on-how-to-stab-goes-viral-on-social-media-38594
a. survey asked about suicide bombing as a specific form of militant violence and found the highest support for it in the Middle East at 80% percent in Gaza and the West Bank,
b. Violently oppresses gays.
c. terrorize Christians and drive them out of their territory
d. Israel must exercise control over their borders, as EVERY sovereign nation does, or Palestinians import missiles and terror weapons to kill Jews.
e. Abbas goes before UN Sept. 2014 and says Israel committed genocide in Gaza.
f. Palestinian mom wishes all her 10 sons would be suicide bombers
g. Abbas routinely honors and praises terrorist murderers of Jews
g. Abbas routinely honors and praises terrorist murderers of Jews
h. Fatah, in UNITY government with Hamas, is just as bad. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/183854#.U-azEJsg_cd
i. the kidnap and murder of the 3 boys by Hamas was widely celebrated in Palestinian
j. Palestinian curriculum teaches 5 year olds songs about killing Jew CHILD ABUSE
k.. Saturates its education and airwaves with a demonic hatred of Jews
l. They say no Jews will be allowed to live in a Palestinian state, places Jews have lived 4000 years
m. They refuse to acknowledge the right of Jews to have a Jewish state
n. Abbas’ PHD was on holocaust denial
o.. Hamas, Fatah Officials Praise Terrorist Who Killed Israeli Baby Oct 23, 2014 http://www.investigativeproject.org/4624/hamas-fatah-officials-praise-terrorist-who-killed
p. Lying Palestinians routinely deny any Jewish/ Christian links to Israel, which goes back 4000 years.
q. lying Palestinians routinely claim Jesus as Palestinian Arab, even though he was a Jew.
Since Fatah agreed to UNITY government with Hamas, they own whatever Hamas does. But, as I show above, on their own, Morally despicable Hamas/Palestinian society examples. It is no different than Hamas. "Hamas is like ISIS. ISIS is like Hamas. They're branches of the same tree." (Netanyahu)
Hamas is a despicable terrorist group advocating genocide
A. Hamas, an official part of Palestinian govt. has a charter which calls for death of Jews and destruction of Israel WARCRIME
B. Hamas Palestinians use human shields to encourage civilian casualties and shoot missiles from hospitals and mosques WAR CRIME
C. Hamas Palestinians sends thousands of missiles at indiscriminant targets aimed to kill as many Jews as possible WAR CRIMES. Every civilian death is Hamas’ fault for sending the missiles in first place. Richard Kemp, former commander of British Troops in Afghanistan and a senior military adviser to the British government, said the following: “I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare where any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of civilians than the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) is doing today in Gaza.”
D. Hamas Nuclear terrorism-sent missiles to Dimona to try and strike nuclear facility WAR CRIMES
E. Hamas WARCRIME wears Israeli uniforms to try and terrorize and kill
F. Hamas uses animals to suicide detonate bombs ANIMAL ABUSE
G. Tortures and kills domestic political opponents. 18 supposed collaborators killed August 21, 2014 as exampleHas no political or religious freedom and has no freedom of speech, press, or assembly, and no independent judiciary.
H. Rated a 6 by Freedom House in its 2013 report on freedom in the world. Seven is the worst possible rating. Hamas ranks 6 in freedom, 6 in civil liberties and 6 political rights.
I. Destroy buildings and kill civilians to frame Israel. WAR CRIME
J. Hamas terrorizes journalists into not reporting their abuses and killing or exiling any who do
K. Hamas killed 160 of their own children building the tunnels
L. Hamas executed the tunnel builders so they would not reveal any info
M. Rocket Scores Direct Hit on Ashdod Synagogue
Three wounded and synagogue damaged by rocket fired from Gaza. Follows third rocket attack on kindergarten earlier Friday.
N. Admits kidnapping and killing 3 Israeli teens
O. http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/vast-majority-of-gazan-arabs-support-terror-against-israel/2014/08/28/
Saturday, December 27, 2014
12 Questions That Prove Palestine Never Existed!
12 Questions That Prove Palestine Never Existed!
If you are so sure that “Palestine , the country, goes back through most of recorded history,” I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine :
1) When was it founded and by whom?
2) What were its borders?
3) What was its capital?
4) What were its major cities?
5) What constituted the basis of its economy?
6) What was its form of government?
7) Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
8) Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
9) What was the language of the country of Palestine ?
10) What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine ?
11) What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.
2) What were its borders?
3) What was its capital?
4) What were its major cities?
5) What constituted the basis of its economy?
6) What was its form of government?
7) Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
8) Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
9) What was the language of the country of Palestine ?
10) What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine ?
11) What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.
And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
You are lamenting the “low sinking” of a “once proud” nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that “nation” proud and what was it so proud of?
You are lamenting the “low sinking” of a “once proud” nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that “nation” proud and what was it so proud of?
And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call “Palestinians” are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over — or thrown out of — the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?
I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day “Palestinians” to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won’t work here.
The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel ; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it “the Palestinian people” and installed it in Gaza , Judea, and Samaria . How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the “West Bank” and Gaza , respectively?
The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so-called “Palestinians” have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel , and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation” — or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.
In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East . Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel ‘s ancient sovereignty over Gaza , Judea, and Samaria.
That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?
Friday, December 26, 2014
The IDF killed no civilians in Gaza
The IDF killed no civilians in Gaza
October 12, 2014 by Thomas Wictor
The Israeli Defense Forces killed no civilians in Gaza.
What I mean is that the IDF did not knowingly undertake actions that resulted in civilian deaths. Civilians were killed because Hamas and other terrorist groups took extraordinary steps to ensure that such deaths occurred. Yet even in the face of such depravity, the IDF killed a statistically nonexistent number of civilians. I’ll prove it to you, and then you’ll be forced to agree with me.
First, we must show the fraudulence of the lists that claim 2100 Palestinians were killed.
The International Middle East Media Center published the names of all the Palestinians killed in the fifty-day war. Here’s the photo they include.
That’s a lie. She’s reacting to the news of Operation Four Little Martyrs, in which Hamas murdered four children and blamed it on Israel. All the photo captions say she’s the mother of one of the dead boys, photographed outside the morgue of al-Shifa hospital after seeing the corpse of her son.
No name and no tears.
I don’t care if you think I’m being harsh. This woman is pretending. She’s acting for the camera. When I see falseness, I call it out.
The list of dead Palestinians presented by the International Middle East Media Center includes people who were not killed.
Salem Shemaly is the star of the bogus sniper video that the International Solidarity Movement produced.
His family told two completely different stories about when they recovered his body and what condition it was in. Max Blumenthal diligently debunked the Shemaly family’s lies, for which he deserves an attaboy.
Attaboy, Max!
So that list of dead Palestinians is worthless. What about the list of dead Palestinian children that the Telegraph published? Well, it includes terrorists.
Here’s another terrorist.
Though only fifteen, Waseem Rida Salhiyeh was a member of the Abu Rish Brigade.
Therefore another worthless list.
The Palestinians count names twice, and they also include the names of those they accidentally killed themselves and those they murdered. During the fifty-day war, Hamas set off an unbelievable number of massive improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
They leveled entire city blocks.
In addition, 875 rockets fell inside Gaza. All those rockets and IEDs exploded in populated areas. Most of Gaza’s citizens are squeezed into 57 square miles (155 km squared). That’s the size of Gardendale, Alabama.
Gardendale has a population of 13,735, compared to Gaza’s 1.8 million. The population density of Gardendale is 767 per square mile (295 per km squared.) Gaza has a population density of 13,069 per square mile (5046 per km squared). The terrorist IEDs and rockets killed hundreds of Palestinians.
Hamas also murdered hundreds. There were summary executions.
The police killed dozens of protestors, and dozens of accused collaborators were murdered. More names for the death list.
1. Rounding up about 400 members of the opposing political parties, “probably” killing them, and blaming Israel.
2. Locking civilians inside their houses after Israelis warned them to leave, thus ensuring that the residents would be killed.
3. Blocking exits from neighborhoods that the IDF warned would be targeted.
4. Shooting and killing civilians trying to flee from the fighting.
5. Breaking into occupied homes to fire at Israeli troops, in an effort to get civilians killed.
6. Summarily shooting and killing anyone found outside after the order was given to not evacuate.
Now comes the information I learned today that both exhilarated and depressed me.
During the fifty-day war, about 760 Gazans died of natural causes. This is an estimate based on data from the CIA. Since the leading cause of death in Gaza is heart disease, it’s guaranteed that more than 760 Palestinians died of natural causes during Operation Protective Edge. The stress and shock would’ve caused many heart attacks.
However, the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center—which is trying to determine the rate of Palestinian civilian deaths versus combatant deaths—says that it will not “brand figures released by the Palestinians as deliberate deception.” The Center would “rather err to the detriment of Israel” than make claims it can’t back up.
Would you say that the New York Times is especially pro-Israel? Here’s what it says about whether or not the Palestinians include deaths from natural causes in their lists of those killed by Israel.
“Most likely”? OF COURSE Hamas counts those who died of natural causes in the list of people “killed by Israel.” They lock civilians in their houses to be blown up, they murder children, they kill their own leaders and blame it on Israel, but you think they’re going to draw the line at adding death by natural causes to the list of war dead?
“Khaled, I don’t like this! We can’t blame Israel for these deaths! It’s dishonest!”
The official and utterly unverifiable number of Palestinians killed in Operation Protective Edge is 2100.
If we break down the numbers the way “human rights” organizations admit we should, here’s what we have.
900 combatants killed by the IDF +
760 dead from natural causes +
120 Fatah members killed by Hamas +
400 opposition members killed +
50 protestors killed +
38 “collaborators” killed =
———————————-
2260
760 dead from natural causes +
120 Fatah members killed by Hamas +
400 opposition members killed +
50 protestors killed +
38 “collaborators” killed =
———————————-
2260
That figure does not include those killed by the 1000 IEDs and the 875 rockets. Itdoes not include those forced to stay in their houses during the fighting. It does not include those killed when their homes were used as combat posts. It does not include the total number of those summarily killed for violating whatever rule Hamas deemed violated. It does not include those killed as the collateral damage of terrorist offensive and defensive ground operations. And it does not includethose killed in “false-flag” operations, such as Operation Four Little Martyrs or the Hamas assault on the UNRWA school at Jabalia.
The IDF assault on Shijaiyah—the center of gravity of Hamas and Islamic Jihad—took place a little after midnight on July 20, 2014. Because the civilians didn’t flee, the Israelis chose to forgo artillery preparation. Having been warned of the assault four days in advance, the terrorists readied one of the largest ambushes in the history of urban warfare. At 1:00 a.m. they hit the Golani Brigade with mortars, heavy machine guns, IEDs, recoilless rifles, antitank guided missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, rifle grenades, hand grenades, explosively formed penetrators, and land mines.
In a desperate effort to save the lives of their men, the IDF fired 600 155mm high-explosive artillery shells and dropped 100 MK-84 2000-lb bombs. The fortress of Shijaiyah was demolished.
Seventy Palestinians were reported killed. Out of 100,000.
But wait!
In the Gatestone Institute article about Hamas war crimes, linked above, here’s what a Palestinian said.
In the Shijaiya area, people received warnings from the Israelis and tried to evacuate the area, but Hamas militants blocked the exits and ordered people to return to their homes. Some of the people had no choice but to run towards the Israelis and ask for protection for their families. Hamas shot some of those people as they were running; the rest were forced to return to their homes and get bombed. This is how the Shijaiya massacre happened. More than 100 people were killed.
According to the Palestinians, Hamas caused all the deaths even in the assault on Shijaiyah. Therefore, the death tally is increased.
900 combatants killed by the IDF +
760 dead from natural causes +
120 Fatah members killed by Hamas +
400 opposition members killed +
50 protestors killed +
38 “collaborators” killed +
100 civilians killed in Shijaiyah =
———————————-
2360
760 dead from natural causes +
120 Fatah members killed by Hamas +
400 opposition members killed +
50 protestors killed +
38 “collaborators” killed +
100 civilians killed in Shijaiyah =
———————————-
2360
Remember that the official toll is 2100. This proves two things, the first being that Palestinian figures are completely worthless.
Secondly, it proves that the Israeli Defense Forces achieved the impossible: They fought a major war without killing civilians. Virtually all of the civilians who died were killed by Palestinian terrorists or were the victims of illness, accident, or domestic violence.
You may not think that Israelis are God’s chosen people, but the Israeli Defense Forces deserve to be God’s chosen military.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
barbarity of modern islam
Barbarity of modern islam
NYPD cop killer worked for Hamas-linked Islamic Society of North
America,” Jihadwatch, December 23, 2014More indication that Ismaaiyl Abdullah-Muhammad,
aka Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, was indeed intending to “strike terror into the
hearts of the enemies of Allah” (Qur’an 8:60) when he shot NYPD cops Rafael
Ramos and Wenjian Liu.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Obama stopped pretending
Obama stops faking Israel policy
The Obama administration is not the first to stick itself into an Israeli election process. During the Clinton administration, when for a short period there was a direct election of the prime minster, the White House was happy to send over its most savvy and experienced campaign team, including pollster Stanley Greenberg, James Carville and Bob Shrum, to help Labor Party leader Ehud Barak oust Benjamin Netanyahu in his re-election bid in 1999. The White House had also favored Shimon Peres in his race against Netanyahu in 1996, which Netanyahu narrowly won.
Demonstrating that Democratic U.S. presidents continue to want Netanyahu out of the way, some of the same campaign team from 15 years back, including Stanley Greenberg, are again descending on Israel to help the current Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog try to oust the prime minister in the March 17 elections. Of course, American campaign operatives are free agents, and have not been ordered to report for duty in Israel by either President Barack Obama or Secretary of State John Kerry. But the campaign messaging as to the favored party from the American perspective is nonetheless pretty clear. There was a time when both Democrats and Republicans by and large supported Israel's elected leader, whether that leader was from the Right or the Left, and kept out of Israel's elections. It was generally a bit tougher for American administrations if Israel's leader was from the Right, but today any pretense of equal treatment is long past. The same splits and partisanship which now divide American politics have carried over to how American officials try to participate in and influence Israeli elections.
Both Obama and Netanyahu came into office in 2009. They had vastly different agendas and expectations of each other. Netanyahu wanted America to focus first on stopping Iran's nuclear program, which it considered an existential threat. Obama wanted Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians and stop settlement construction. In essence, Obama wanted to bring American policy more into line with that of the Europeans and the "international community," which was always ready to blame the absence of peace on Israel, and in particular on Israeli building in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Obama also wanted something much bigger than a halt to Iran's nuclear program -- but rather a new American and Western relationship with Iran, creating a strategic partnership with the mullahs, much as say Henry Kissinger accomplished with China in the early 1970s.
Obama argued that progress on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks would make it easier for the United States to build a coalition of nations ready to work on addressing Iran's nuclear program. And to achieve that progress in the peace process, first Israel had to stop settlement activity of any kind in the "occupied Palestinian lands." The Obama team, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, made clear that they were opposed to settlement activity even in areas that President George W. Bush, in his letter to Ariel Sharon in 2004, had effectively conceded would remain part of Israel if a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians were reached.
The Obama policy on Iran has been worse than advertised. Every sanctions bill adopted by Congress was weakened after Democrats responded to White House pressure, with generous waivers granted to the administration. Unbeknownst to members of Congress, except a few who were participating in the subterfuge such as then-Senator Kerry, the Americans were busy chasing after Iran to achieve that desired thaw in relations. Of course, the multiyear negotiating process between the P5+1 and Iran has not been pretty to watch, as Kerry and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman have continued a steady drip, drip, drip of weakening resolve in what seems like a desperate effort to sign a deal of some kind, even one that preserves Iran's nuclear capability and processed uranium, ignores Iran's missile program, backtracks on inspections, relaxes sanctions, and at best extends the time frame for a nuclear breakout by a few months. The Obama administration's desire to make old enemies friends has now been extended to Cuba. The policy of reducing ties with long-term allies such as Israel can be seen as either deliberate policy or a necessary consequence, given the other overriding policy objectives such as warming relations with former foes like Iran.
This weekend, the Obama administration let slip exactly how it was working to help its favored candidates in the Knesset elections. After meeting with and talking to candidates from the left-of-center Israeli parties, Kerry indicated that consideration of a new Palestinian Authority-drafted resolution by the Security Council, demanding a complete withdrawal of all Israeli forces from all territories beyond the Green Line by the end of 2017, was a bad idea, since it might harden attitudes among Israeli voters, and lead to more support for Israel's hard-line parties, including Netanyahu's Likud.
"The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the luncheon was confidential, said that Kerry explained that Israel's liberal political leaders, Shimon Peres and Tzipi Livni, had expressed concern that a Security Council move to pressure Israel on the eve of election would only strengthen the hands of Israeli hardliners, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Naftali Bennett, an implacable foe of a Palestinian state and leader of the right-wing Jewish Home [Habayit Hayehudi] party. Netanyahu is also fiercely opposed to the Palestinians effort to secure Security Council backing for its statehood drive."
Of course, there may be more going on here than the article reveals. The United States did not want to be forced into using its veto at the Security Council to block the resolution, if the PA were able to secure nine votes, an effort that at the moment seems to be falling short. The Obama administration has been reluctant to line up on the opposite side of its European and Third World allies on issues relating to Israel at the U.N., and there is little doubt that the Europeans in particular are anxious at this point to turn the screws on Israel, backed by increasingly strident anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic voices in their own countries, both Muslim and non-Muslim. Having a resolution blocked by the United States at the Security Council would at least give the Europeans an E for effort in their home countries on the one foreign policy issue on which the Continent seems united -- bashing Israel. But delaying consideration of the resolution has a more important purpose, the Americans are telling the Europeans -- preventing Netanyahu from making political hay from it.
In essence, Kerry is using the advice he is receiving from Peres and Livni to persuade the Europeans to join with him in pressuring the Palestinians not to push the resolution until after the Israeli election, when, hint, hint, a new government friendlier to their demands may be in place in Israel. The other implied promise or threat depending on the outcome of the Israeli elections, is that the United States might not use its veto after the elections to block the same or a similar resolution in the Security Council, especially if the Israeli right-wing parties are returned to power.
There has been a stridency in Obama's approach to governing the last few months -- running roughshod over the will of Congress on immigration reform, environmental issues, and Cuba policy to name a few, and seemingly America's voters as well, based on the rejection of his policies in the midterm results. It would be foolish to believe that trouble does not lay ahead for Israel whatever its election outcome, given Obama's minimally concealed contempt for the Jewish state, and in particular its current prime minister. Recent Israeli polling suggests that with almost three months to go (a long time in Israeli politics), the odds favor another government led by a coalition of right-wing parties, probably joined by religious parties.
Israelis elect Israel's leaders, not the White House. The Obama administration, however, seems to be betting that Israelis may be concerned enough about deteriorating relations with Washington, not to give Obama an excuse to be even nastier his last two years -- we will slap you around less if you retire Netanyahu. My guess is that message will not sell. Israelis, like most Americans, have taken the measure of the man who leads America, and increasingly people in both countries don't trust him. The belief is he will slap around anyone who gets in his way, and appeasement is always a bad strategy with bullies.
The Obama administration is not the first to stick itself into an Israeli election process. During the Clinton administration, when for a short period there was a direct election of the prime minster, the White House was happy to send over its most savvy and experienced campaign team, including pollster Stanley Greenberg, James Carville and Bob Shrum, to help Labor Party leader Ehud Barak oust Benjamin Netanyahu in his re-election bid in 1999. The White House had also favored Shimon Peres in his race against Netanyahu in 1996, which Netanyahu narrowly won.
Demonstrating that Democratic U.S. presidents continue to want Netanyahu out of the way, some of the same campaign team from 15 years back, including Stanley Greenberg, are again descending on Israel to help the current Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog try to oust the prime minister in the March 17 elections. Of course, American campaign operatives are free agents, and have not been ordered to report for duty in Israel by either President Barack Obama or Secretary of State John Kerry. But the campaign messaging as to the favored party from the American perspective is nonetheless pretty clear. There was a time when both Democrats and Republicans by and large supported Israel's elected leader, whether that leader was from the Right or the Left, and kept out of Israel's elections. It was generally a bit tougher for American administrations if Israel's leader was from the Right, but today any pretense of equal treatment is long past. The same splits and partisanship which now divide American politics have carried over to how American officials try to participate in and influence Israeli elections.
Both Obama and Netanyahu came into office in 2009. They had vastly different agendas and expectations of each other. Netanyahu wanted America to focus first on stopping Iran's nuclear program, which it considered an existential threat. Obama wanted Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians and stop settlement construction. In essence, Obama wanted to bring American policy more into line with that of the Europeans and the "international community," which was always ready to blame the absence of peace on Israel, and in particular on Israeli building in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Obama also wanted something much bigger than a halt to Iran's nuclear program -- but rather a new American and Western relationship with Iran, creating a strategic partnership with the mullahs, much as say Henry Kissinger accomplished with China in the early 1970s.
Obama argued that progress on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks would make it easier for the United States to build a coalition of nations ready to work on addressing Iran's nuclear program. And to achieve that progress in the peace process, first Israel had to stop settlement activity of any kind in the "occupied Palestinian lands." The Obama team, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, made clear that they were opposed to settlement activity even in areas that President George W. Bush, in his letter to Ariel Sharon in 2004, had effectively conceded would remain part of Israel if a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians were reached.
The Obama policy on Iran has been worse than advertised. Every sanctions bill adopted by Congress was weakened after Democrats responded to White House pressure, with generous waivers granted to the administration. Unbeknownst to members of Congress, except a few who were participating in the subterfuge such as then-Senator Kerry, the Americans were busy chasing after Iran to achieve that desired thaw in relations. Of course, the multiyear negotiating process between the P5+1 and Iran has not been pretty to watch, as Kerry and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman have continued a steady drip, drip, drip of weakening resolve in what seems like a desperate effort to sign a deal of some kind, even one that preserves Iran's nuclear capability and processed uranium, ignores Iran's missile program, backtracks on inspections, relaxes sanctions, and at best extends the time frame for a nuclear breakout by a few months. The Obama administration's desire to make old enemies friends has now been extended to Cuba. The policy of reducing ties with long-term allies such as Israel can be seen as either deliberate policy or a necessary consequence, given the other overriding policy objectives such as warming relations with former foes like Iran.
This weekend, the Obama administration let slip exactly how it was working to help its favored candidates in the Knesset elections. After meeting with and talking to candidates from the left-of-center Israeli parties, Kerry indicated that consideration of a new Palestinian Authority-drafted resolution by the Security Council, demanding a complete withdrawal of all Israeli forces from all territories beyond the Green Line by the end of 2017, was a bad idea, since it might harden attitudes among Israeli voters, and lead to more support for Israel's hard-line parties, including Netanyahu's Likud.
"The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the luncheon was confidential, said that Kerry explained that Israel's liberal political leaders, Shimon Peres and Tzipi Livni, had expressed concern that a Security Council move to pressure Israel on the eve of election would only strengthen the hands of Israeli hardliners, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Naftali Bennett, an implacable foe of a Palestinian state and leader of the right-wing Jewish Home [Habayit Hayehudi] party. Netanyahu is also fiercely opposed to the Palestinians effort to secure Security Council backing for its statehood drive."
Of course, there may be more going on here than the article reveals. The United States did not want to be forced into using its veto at the Security Council to block the resolution, if the PA were able to secure nine votes, an effort that at the moment seems to be falling short. The Obama administration has been reluctant to line up on the opposite side of its European and Third World allies on issues relating to Israel at the U.N., and there is little doubt that the Europeans in particular are anxious at this point to turn the screws on Israel, backed by increasingly strident anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic voices in their own countries, both Muslim and non-Muslim. Having a resolution blocked by the United States at the Security Council would at least give the Europeans an E for effort in their home countries on the one foreign policy issue on which the Continent seems united -- bashing Israel. But delaying consideration of the resolution has a more important purpose, the Americans are telling the Europeans -- preventing Netanyahu from making political hay from it.
In essence, Kerry is using the advice he is receiving from Peres and Livni to persuade the Europeans to join with him in pressuring the Palestinians not to push the resolution until after the Israeli election, when, hint, hint, a new government friendlier to their demands may be in place in Israel. The other implied promise or threat depending on the outcome of the Israeli elections, is that the United States might not use its veto after the elections to block the same or a similar resolution in the Security Council, especially if the Israeli right-wing parties are returned to power.
There has been a stridency in Obama's approach to governing the last few months -- running roughshod over the will of Congress on immigration reform, environmental issues, and Cuba policy to name a few, and seemingly America's voters as well, based on the rejection of his policies in the midterm results. It would be foolish to believe that trouble does not lay ahead for Israel whatever its election outcome, given Obama's minimally concealed contempt for the Jewish state, and in particular its current prime minister. Recent Israeli polling suggests that with almost three months to go (a long time in Israeli politics), the odds favor another government led by a coalition of right-wing parties, probably joined by religious parties.
Israelis elect Israel's leaders, not the White House. The Obama administration, however, seems to be betting that Israelis may be concerned enough about deteriorating relations with Washington, not to give Obama an excuse to be even nastier his last two years -- we will slap you around less if you retire Netanyahu. My guess is that message will not sell. Israelis, like most Americans, have taken the measure of the man who leads America, and increasingly people in both countries don't trust him. The belief is he will slap around anyone who gets in his way, and appeasement is always a bad strategy with bullies.
a very good question
A ‘very good question’ in Mideast conflict
BY JEFF ROBBINS
EPA/FILE 2014
Smoke rose after an Israeli airstrike in August during the summer’s conflict with Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip.
At a panel on the Mideast conflict two years ago, then-Representative Barney Frank asked the late Leonard Fein, a left-leaning critic of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, why it was that if the Palestinians truly desired a two-state solution, they had continued to reject Israeli offers of a Palestinian state in return for peace. “That,” replied Fein, “is a very good question.”
With the Palestinians’ decision to enlist the United Nations to impose terms on the Israelis despite objections by the United States, the question remains not only a very good one, but the proverbial elephant in the room. Why, indeed, is it that the Palestinians rejected Israel’s offer for an independent Palestinian state comprised of virtually all of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and a capital in East Jerusalem in 2000, in 2001, and then again in 2008? After all, acceptance of any of those peace deals would have resulted not just in an end to the settlement construction that the Palestinians assert is the obstacle to peace, but the evacuation of tens of thousands of Israelis from the West Bank. What inference is a reasonable person to draw from that rejection?
>
In his memoir, former President Bill Clinton described Yasser Arafat’s rejection of the Palestinian state offered by the Israelis at the end of his second term as tragic. In her memoir, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice describes the even more favorable offer made by Israel in 2008, and the high hopes that the United States had that, at long last, the Palestinians would accept the state that had been offered them in return for peace. “In the end,” Rice writes, “the Palestinians walked away from the negotiations. . . . Had [Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas] expressed a willingness to accept the extraordinary terms he’d been offered, it might have been a turning point in the history of the intractable conflict.”
The answer to the “very good question” posed by Frank, and the reasonable inference to be drawn from the history of Palestinian rejectionism, is not a particularly happy one. It is that Israel’s proposals for an independent Palestinian state have come with a condition that the Palestinian leadership has regarded as a deal-breaker: a permanent end of the conflict, and a commitment to accept Israel’s existence. By contrast, the Security Council end-game sought by the Palestinians is an end-run around any such condition; it would impose on the Palestinians no obligation to end the dispute.
This is not by chance. As Abbas knows, the Palestinian street opposes any end of conflict with Israel that fails to bring about its disappearance. Even before the summer’s war between Israel and Hamas, a public opinion poll showed that fewer than 30 percent of Palestinians supported a two-state solution — a West Bank/Gaza state living in lasting peace with Israel. Almost two-thirds told pollsters that “resistance should continue until all of historic Palestine is liberated.” And this past September, 80 percent of Palestinians polled said that Hamas should continue to fire rockets at Israel, with Hamas, recognized by the United States as a terrorist enterprise, receiving an 88 percent approval rating, compared with only 36 percent approving the considerably more moderate Palestinian Authority government led by Abbas.
None of this is new, and none of it comes as a surprise. In May 2009, not long after spurning the “extraordinary terms” described by Rice, Abbas told the Washington Post that he was in no hurry to make peace with the Israelis, and that he refused even to negotiate with them. Rather, Abbas preferred to wait, hoping that international pressure on Israel would force it to capitulate without any corresponding obligation on the Palestinians’ part to agree to live in peace. “Until then,” Abbas told the Post, “in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.”
The Palestinians’ argument that UN intervention is necessary because they cannot otherwise obtain a state represents a dearly-held narrative that has been adopted wholesale in certain quarters. Sadly, however, it is a narrative that is tough to square with what has actually occurred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)