One Israel, four Jewish members of Congress and four oxymorons - by Stephen M. Flatow

The statement issued by four Jewish members of Congress challenging Israel’s prime minister may have set a new record for contradictions.

Stephen M. Flatow..
Israel National News..
15 April '19..
Link: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23736

Have you ever seen so many oxymorons in a single paragraph? The statement issued by four Jewish members of Congress challenging Israel’s prime minister may have set a new record.

The statement was issued by Representatives Eliot Engel and Nita Lowey of New York, Ted Deutch of Florida, and Brad Schneider of Illinois, all Democrats. They were responding to a remark made by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a recent interview, in which he indicated he might propose extending Israeli law to Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria.

Anyone who is familiar with the actual situation on the ground in those territories knows that way back in 1995, the Palestinian Authority extended its laws to the cities in which 98% of the Palestinian Arabs live. So why the double standard? Why can’t Israeli law be implemented in the Jewish towns? Why do the Jews still have to be governed by the arbitrary and cumbersome system of the old Israeli military administration, while the Arabs get to live under their own laws?

The four congress members didn’t offer an answer to that question. You know why? Because nobody ever asked them. Journalists never pose such questions, because they might not get the answers they like. Even more risky—such questions might stimulate the members of Congress to give some genuine serious thought to these issues, instead of just regurgitating the talking points that their advisers pick up from the opinion pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and the talking heads on the Sunday interview shows.

The first oxymoron in the statement by the congressional gang of four was this doozy: “Israel’s ability to guard itself from threats is non-negotiable. We hope that any security measures are implemented within the context of preserving the eventual possibility of a two-state solution.”

The definition of an oxymoron is an expression that has within it two terms that contradict each other. The creation of a Palestinian state in Judea-Samaria, which these members of Congress are advocating, would make it impossible for Israel to “guard itself from threats,” as they put it.

A sine qua non of both the Israeli ethos and the bilateral alliance — that Israel defends itself by itself - by Evelyn Gordon

...two basic facts. First, there are things Israel needs from Trump more than troops in Syria. And second, asking America to keep soldiers anywhere for Israel’s sake violates a sine qua non of both the Israeli ethos and the bilateral alliance — that Israel defends itself by itself.

Evelyn Gordon..
Algemeiner..
05 January '19..

Like most pro-Israel commentators, I’m appalled by US President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw American forces from Syria. Nevertheless, this is the wrong issue for pro-Israel activists to pick a fight over. Criticizing the decision on grounds unrelated to Israel — of which there are many — is fine. But to imply that US troops should remain in Syria for Israel’s sake is to betray the fundamental tenet of the American-Israeli alliance: Israel will defend itself by itself; it will never ask America to put soldiers in harm’s way for its sake.

It’s worth underscoring just how unique this makes Israel among American allies. America has fought to defend Europe repeatedly. It fought for South Korea in the 1950s, South Vietnam in the 1960s, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in 1991. And there’s an understanding, often anchored in bilateral or multilateral treaties (such as NATO), that America would fight for many other allies if necessary, like Japan, Canada or Australia.

But with Israel, the agreement has always been that Israel would see to its own defense, while America would provide it with the means to do so. That arrangement suited both sides. For America, it was much less costly in terms of both lives and money than having to defend Israeli militarily (a point I explained in detail here). And for Israel, it satisfied a deeply ingrained lesson of Jewish history: Relying on others for protection always ends badly for the Jews.

(Continue to Full Column)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

The right to criticize Israel is beside the point - by Jonathan S. Tobin

The issue isn’t whether it’s OK to criticize the government of a democracy, but whether that democracy has a right to exist and to defend itself.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
JNS.org..
23 October '18..

In an election season in which we are awash in polls, we’ve now been given one more telling us something that everybody already knew. A new group founded by Jewish Democrats called the Jewish Electorate Institute has commissioned and published a poll that says Jewish voters back Democrats over Republicans by a 74-26 margin in the upcoming midterm elections. For good measure, it also informs us that Jews disapprove of U.S. President Donald Trump’s performance in office by a 75-25 margin.

This is what the news business calls a “dog bites man” story. But there was one question the survey raised that is worthy of comment: whether or not American Jews thought they had a right to criticize Israel’s government. A majority of them believe they do, with 59 percent saying that you could be both pro-Israel and still disagree with some or many of the Israeli government’s policies.

This result is being trumpeted by groups critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government as proof that they are more representative of American Jewish opinion than those U.S. Jews who are supportive of the government. It is also put forward as a vindication of sorts for a liberal Zionist perspective on the Middle East conflict that argues that American Jews not only have a right to oppose Netanyahu’s policies, but a duty to push for pressure on the Jewish state to change its ways while still being able to claim the label of pro-Israel.

But those heralding its results are missing the point. The issue isn’t whether it’s OK to criticize the government of a democracy, but whether that democracy has a right to exist and to defend itself. Even more to the point, the key question is whether Israel’s voters have a right to have their judgment respected by those who would like to push foreign governments to put intolerable pressure on their government to do things its people have clearly said they oppose.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Israel’s love affair with Trump is both appropriate and for good reason - by Evelyn Gordon

...For most American Jews, Trump’s domestic policies are obviously more important than his Israel ones, and that’s legitimate; his domestic policies more directly affect their lives. But Jewish Democrats ought to grant Israelis the same courtesy. Accept that they judge Trump on his Israel policies rather than his domestic ones, as the former are what directly affect their lives. And after eight years of Obama, Trump’s Israel policies have so far been a welcome relief.

Evelyn Gordon..
JNS.org..
14 March '18..

Bipartisanship was the watchword at last week’s AIPAC conference, but it’s no secret that pro-Israel Democrats have trouble swallowing Israelis’ enthusiasm for President Donald Trump, whose approval rating in Israel hit 67 percent even before he decided to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. They can understand Israel’s joy over that decision. But they can’t understand its seeming disregard of Trump actions that harm Israel, like abandoning Syria to Iran and Russia or divulging classified Israeli intelligence to Russia’s president.

The explanation is simple, but unfortunately, Democrats won’t like it: Barack Obama set the bar for U.S-Israeli relations so low that there’s literally no Israel-related issue on which Trump has been worse than his predecessor. And there are many on which he’s been not just modestly better, but spectacularly so.

In Trump’s negative column, Syria is “Exhibit A.” Anyone who has heard Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lately knows that Iran’s growing presence there is a top security concern. Moreover, thanks to Russia’s presence in Syria, Israel can’t handle this problem alone; Russia is way out of its weight class. Consequently, it needs America’s help, which hasn’t always been so forthcoming.

Nevertheless, it’s not Trump who abandoned Syria to Iran and Russia; that was Obama’s decision.

(Continue to Full Column)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Israel in Trump’s 1st Year – Steering Toward Apotheosis - by Daniel Seaman

Trump turned the Middle East upside down to the appall of experts and liberals just by adding the element of common sense: support allies, punish violators of trust. Something not tried in 25 years

Daniel Seaman..
MiDA..
22 January '18..
Link: http://en.mida.org.il/2018/01/22/israel-trumps-first-year-steering-toward-apotheosis/

In one year, Donald Trump has done more for the State of Israel and for resolving the Middle East conflict than Barak Obama or any previous president for that matter, had done in the past 50 years.

When Obama left office after eight years as President of the United States, the Jewish People in the State of Israel were at their most powerful, secure and prosperous position ever. This was, without a doubt, a direct consequence of his presidency. It was not his intention though. By no means at all.

Obama sought to change the paradigm in the Middle East. He had respect for Islam and was concerned with appeasing Arab grievances. His famous speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009 offered a new beginning with Muslims around the world, based upon mutual interest and mutual respect. More importantly, upon shared common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

When the Arab Spring broke out, whether or not as a result of Obama’s policies, it brought new issues to the fore. Issues that Obama had little interest in, including how to build support for fledgling democratic transitions. His policy instead was to reshape and redesign the balance of power and the political equation in the Middle East. He abandoned long time American friends and betrayed steadfast allies while strengthening extremists and the extreme branch of Islam and sought to marginalize Israel. By empowering a corrupt and lethal Shi’a theocracy in Iran, he meddled in a 1400 year war that has been going on in the Islamic world, and literally stirred the hornet’s nest.

This proved to be a mistake of, well… biblical proportions.

The catastrophic failure of Obama’s foreign policy and colossal misunderstanding of the Arab world, combined with the sheer arrogance of his progressive ideology, proved detrimental to the stability of Arab regimes throughout the Middle East. This failure cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Iran and most of all, Syria of course.

The terrible misery that was created led to the mass migration of Arabs from these collapsing countries and the swamping of Europe. Instead of inducing “Hope” he sowed agony and despair.

Whereas Obama pandered to Muslim tyrants, the animosity he felt towards the elected leader of Israel was no secret. Members of his administration flaunted it. The Iranian deal was the biggest example but the final act was the UN Security Council vote on settlements at the twilight of his term, which he hoped would weaken Israel’s position in any future peace talks.

A proposal that for the first time would put a real price on Palestinian intransigence - by Evelyn Gordon

...Not only have the Palestinians never suffered any consequences for intransigence, but they have actually been rewarded for it. Every time they’ve rejected an Israeli or American peace proposal–in 2000, 2001, 2008 and 2013–they’ve been rewarded by international pressure on Israel to sweeten the deal. Every time they’ve indulged in a new outbreak of violence, they’ve been rewarded by international pressure on Israel to make concessions to “calm the situation” and “bring the Palestinians back to the table.” And as long as saying “no” keeps producing diplomatic gains, why would any sane negotiator ever say “yes”?

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary Magazine..
11 November '16..
Link: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/israel/will-trump-defy-experts-on-israel/

Nothing about Donald Trump’s campaign leads one to believe that he pays much attention to his advisors, and his stunning electoral victory–achieved largely by ignoring “expert” advice–will doubtless reinforce this tendency. Nevertheless, I hope he’ll end up adopting the policy proposed one of his advisors on Israel four months ago. Like Trump’s campaign, it’s a policy that flies in the face of the “expert” consensus on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And for that very reason, it may well work better than this consensus, which has an unbroken track record of failure over the last 20 years.

In an interview with the Jerusalem Post in July, Trump advisor David Friedman began by stating an obvious but widely ignored fact: West Bank settlements are neither illegal nor the real obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace. “The impediment to peace is very clear in both of our minds and that is the failure of the Palestinians to renounce hatred and renounce violence,” Friedman said. “Everything else is barely important.”

Then he started dropping bombshells. First, he said, if Palestinian intransigence continues, Israeli annexation of some of the settlements “is certainly a legitimate possibility.” Second, given that the two-state solution has repeatedly “failed in the past,” there’s no reason to remain wedded to it: “I think it’s reasonable to consider any other alternatives people of good faith may propose.”

Both those proposals go straight to the heart of the reason why the two-state solution has repeatedly failed: Not only have the Palestinians never suffered any consequences for intransigence, but they have actually been rewarded for it. Every time they’ve rejected an Israeli or American peace proposal–in 2000, 2001, 2008 and 2013–they’ve been rewarded by international pressure on Israel to sweeten the deal. Every time they’ve indulged in a new outbreak of violence, they’ve been rewarded by international pressure on Israel to make concessions to “calm the situation” and “bring the Palestinians back to the table.” And as long as saying “no” keeps producing diplomatic gains, why would any sane negotiator ever say “yes”?

Moreover, the international community’s behavior has merely fed the Palestinians’ fantasy that if they keep saying “no” long enough, Israel will eventually disappear. I’ve written before about last year’s Fikra Forum poll, which found that only a quarter of Palestinian respondents expected Israel to “continue to exist as a Jewish state” in 30 to 40 years, while a plurality believed that even their short-term goal should be “reclaiming all of historic Palestine from the river to the sea.” That option beat out both the two-state and the one-state solutions. In reality, no matter how much pressure the international community puts on it, Israel remains an independent actor that’s unlikely to acquiesce in its own demise. But if you ignore that fact for a moment and look only at the actions of said international community, the Palestinians’ belief in Israel’s eventual disappearance actually isn’t so illogical.

Taking the first step to ending our unhealthy dependence - by Vic Rosenthal

...Surveys show that a solid majority of the American people still support Israel and her right to defend herself, and the US Congress follows their lead. But foreign policy is controlled by the administration, and as we saw with the Iran deal, Congress can do little to prevent a determined administration from getting its way. Israel has been lucky until now that American presidents have at worst been indifferent to her. Today there is an actively hostile one, and we can’t predict what the future will bring.

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
07 August '16..






In a press conference at the Pentagon last Thursday, US President Obama said,

[The] Israeli military and security community … acknowledges [the Iranian nuclear deal] has been a game changer. The country that was most opposed to the deal.

Sorry, but no. A fact-checker would have to give this at least 3 or 4 Pinocchios. I don’t doubt that Obama found some former or present Israeli official who said this, but it definitely does not represent the views of the “military and security community” here. PM Netanyahu responded (too) politely that Israel’s position opposing the deal hasn’t changed, but Israel’s Defense Ministry issued a very harshly-worded comment, comparing it to the Munich agreement of 1938 that sacrificed Czechoslovakia to the Nazis and paved the way for the Second World War.

As always, Israel sent a mixed message. The PM’s office later conveyed via its ambassador in Washington that it had not seen or approved the stronger Defense Ministry statement. Left-wing politicians in Israel blamed hawkish Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman and chastised him for trying to destroy the relationship between Israel and the US.

Here we go again, the submissive wife walking on eggshells so as not to upset the abusive husband. Obama is easily “infuriated,” by such things as announcements of planned Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem or Netanyahu’s recognition of the fact that a Palestinian state is unlikely to come about in the near future. And he makes his anger evident in numerous ways, all the way from vulgar insults to attempts to intervene in our elections.

As these things go, this is a minor incident but it is indicative of the unhealthy relationship between Israel and the US administration. And since it really is true (as Netanyahu noted in his response to Obama’s very-misleading-if-not-lying remark) that America is our greatest ally, we need to do what we can to improve it.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

(Excellent) U.S.-Israel Relations: How Independent Is Israel? - by Martin Kramer

Israel declared independence 68 years ago, but being independent is a process, not a moment. That process is still unfolding, and it is still incomplete.

Martin Kramer..
Mosaicmagazine.com..
18 May '16..
Link: http://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2016/05/how-independent-is-israel/


The Jewish state has grown dramatically over the last seven decades. But it enjoyed greater freedom of action in its earliest years, when it wasn’t so closely tied to the United States.

On Israel’s Independence Day, it is customary for the Central Bureau of Statistics to summarize some of the basic facts about the transformation of Israeli demography and living standards since the state’s founding in 1948. This is always an encouraging read. Israel’s Jewish population, for instance, has grown nearly tenfold in the intervening years, from 700,000 to almost 6.4 million. When independence was declared in 1948, Israel’s Jews constituted a mere 6 percent of the world Jewish population; today they are at 43 percent. Moreover, 75 percent of Israel’s Jewish population is native-born, more than twice the percentage in 1948. Back then, there were only 34,000 vehicles on the roads; today there are three million. And so forth.

Israel has indeed grown dramatically—in population, wealth, and military prowess. These are all grounds for celebration. But has Israel seen a comparable growth in its independence? That is, has there been a comparable expansion of its ability to take the independent action it must take if it is to protect its interests and survive as a Jewish state? Or is it possible that in these respects Israel was actually more independent in its early years and that it has grown less so over time, especially with the deepening of its relationship with its principal ally the United States?

Let me explore this latter possibility with a quick trip through history. Israel’s security and sovereignty as a Jewish state rest on three events to which precise dates may be assigned: 1948, 1958, and 1967.

- In 1948, Israel declared independence. Just as important, the way it waged war, and the way the Arabs waged war, resulted in the flight of 700,000 Palestinian Arabs and determined that the new state would have a decisive Jewish majority. 1948 gave birth not only to a legally but also to a demographically Jewish state.

- In 1958, still subject to Arab threats to eliminate it, Israel commenced construction of a nuclear reactor at Dimona in the Negev. Subsequent progress secured Israel’s existence against any conceivable threat of destruction by Arab states.

- Finally, in 1967 Israel broke through the narrow borders in which the Jewish state had found itself after the 1948 war, giving it exclusive military control of the land mass from the Mediterranean to the Jordan valley—a control Israel is determined to preserve in any peace scenario. Israel’s victory also finally persuaded many Arabs that they would never defeat it outright, thus creating the incentive for later peace treaties.

These three actions laid the foundation of Israel’s secure existence as a sovereign Jewish state—demographically, militarily, geographically, and politically. But here is an often-overlooked fact: the United States vigorously warned Israel against all three of these actions, and threatened that taking them would leave Israel on its own and “alone.”

Let’s begin again with 1948. Britain had turned over its mandate for Palestine to the United Nations, which in November 1947 voted to partition the territory into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. Initially the Truman administration supported partition, but then began to backtrack in favor of a UN trusteeship over the whole. As Palestinian Jews contemplated whether to declare independence, Secretary of State George Marshall issued the first U.S. “alone” warning to Moshe Shertok (later Sharett), the foreign-minister-in-waiting. “I told Mr. Shertok,” Marshall reported to President Harry Truman,

that they were taking a gamble. If the tide [of Arab hostility] did turn adversely and they came running to us for help they should be placed clearly on notice now that there was no warrant to expect help from the United States, which had warned them of the grave risk which they were running.

This admonition so shook Sharett’s confidence that David Ben-Gurion practically had to quarantine him on his return.

It was, then, in defiance of an American warning that Ben-Gurion declared independence on May 14, 1948. Of course, it is true that Truman immediately recognized Israel, much to Marshall’s chagrin. But the United States also imposed an arms embargo on both Israel and the Arabs. Since Arab states had access to British arms, this effectively left Israel to scramble for weaponry, ultimately provided by the Soviet Union via Czechoslovakia.

Had the Yishuv, the pre-state Jewish community, been dependent on the United States in 1948, its leaders might have decided against pressing for independence. Alternatively, had the new state been dependent on the United States, the 1948 war might have ended in an early ceasefire, leaving Israel a “Jewish state” governed by a bare and dwindling Jewish majority—something like the Maronite Christians of Lebanon.

Israel’s dangerous addiction, and the need to kick the habit - by Vic Rosenthal

...The American people, by and large, are our friends. But this administration is decidedly not on our side, and we don’t know what the American political future will bring. We can’t entirely prevent diplomatic pressure and attempts at subversion from our ‘friends’, and we can’t stop them from empowering our overt enemies. But we can reduce their leverage on us by maximizing our independence.

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
13 May '16..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2016/05/israels-dangerous-addiction/

On this 68th anniversary of the independence of the modern Jewish nation-state, my thoughts naturally turn to the question of how long we will be able to keep that independence, purchased at such great cost.

It’s not an issue that occupies citizens of most other states to the same degree. Although the US has major problems in several areas, I don’t hear Americans talking about losing their independence. They settled that back in the 18th century.

For us, it is never settled, despite international law and despite our successful defense of our homeland. Most of the world does not think that the Jewish people should have an independent state, in many cases because they don’t agree that there is a Jewish people (on the other hand, a ‘Palestinian’ people makes sense to them, or at least they pretend it does).

There is more than one way a sovereign nation can lose its independence. It can be conquered in war, as happened to Carthage in the 2nd century BCE, its people killed, enslaved or dispersed, its wealth carried off and its land sown with salt. It can be invaded and then made into a colony or satellite, its people allowed to live but without self-determination, as happened to the Eastern European satellites of the Soviet Union after WWII. And it can allow its decisions to be influenced by a more powerful state or states, little by little giving up its independent volition to economic and political pressure, until it finds itself so dependent on its ‘patron’ that it has lost the ability to control its destiny.

Israel is threatened militarily today primarily by Iran and its proxies. It would be wrong to minimize the direct threat to our existence that they represent, and our government and the IDF do take it seriously and prepare for conflict.

But we are also at risk of a ‘soft conquest’ by another enemy, this one an alliance of supposedly friendly nations, led by one massively powerful country that is considered our greatest friend and supporter. And our leaders seem blind to this danger.

How does a soft conquest work? Here are some of the tactics:

The US Attitude Towards Judea and Samaria? Not at All Subtle

...Jews resident in the area of Judea and Samaria face, for all intents and purposes, a policy of exclusion. Is it constitutional and legal that in the same geographical area under the jurisdiction of a consulate, there exist two separate and not equal populations: Jewish and Arab, whether Muslim or Christian? Is this policy in the spirit of the democratic foundations of American democracy? Can the consulate adopt exclusionary policies that separate between peoples based on race, nationality and/or religion in the same geographical area? Can it create the “state of the West Bank”?

Yisrael Medad..
Algemeiner.com..
10 May '16..

According to an AP report, the United States will “endorse a tougher tone with Israel” and will publish a report that “takes the Jewish state to task over settlements, demolitions and property seizures on land the Palestinians claim for a future state.” The Palestinian Authority also will be “chastise[d],” although “its primary focus will be a surge of construction in Jewish housing in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.”

This move, as AP has it, “marks a subtle shift.”

Anyone who follows the postings of the US Consulate General in Jerusalem knows well that the American attitude towards Jews living in the areas of the former Mandate for Palestine not currently under full Israel sovereignty is basically one of near total disregard and oblivion.

For example, its Facebook page is in two languages only: English and Arabic. Considering that the Israeli population under the consulate’s jurisdiction, Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria is over a million (Jerusalem 800,000+ and Judea and Samaria almost 500,000), that’s a significant overlook.dorse a tougher tone with Israel” and will publish a report that “takes the Jewish state to task over settlements, demolitions and property seizures on land the Palestinians claim for a future state.” The Palestinian Authority also will be “chastise[d],” although “its primary focus will be a surge of construction in Jewish housing in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.”

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter.

.

Biden’s Untimely Assault on Israel - by Elliott Abrams

...In his book, Ross wrote that “Obama believed Israel was capable of doing more on peace. And it could help change the regional realities, and our place in the region, if it would only move on the Palestinians. But what if the Palestinians were not prepared to move? What if they were not capable of moving, regardless of Israeli actions? He never seemed to ask that question.” Neither did Biden.

Elliott Abrams..
Pressure Points..
19 April '16..

Yesterday, Israel was assaulted twice: once by terrorists, and once by the Vice President of the United States.

The physical attack was in Jerusalem, where a bomb injured 21 people in a bus, several of them seriously.

On the very same day, the VP addressed the group called J Street and shared with it not solidarity with Israelis under attack but–with remarkable timing–a rhetorical attack on the government of Israel.

Here is some of what he said, according to a report in The Times of Israel:

Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged “overwhelming frustration” with Israel’s government on Monday and said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration has led the country in the wrong direction, in an unusually sharp rebuke of America’s closest ally in the Middle East.

“I firmly believe that the actions that Israel’s government has taken over the past the past several years — the steady and systematic expansion of settlements, the legalization of outposts, land seizures — they’re moving us and more importantly they’re moving Israel in the wrong direction,” Biden said.

He said those policies were moving Israel toward a “one-state reality” — meaning a single state for Palestinians and Israelis in which eventually, Israeli Jews will no longer be the majority.

“That reality is dangerous,” Biden added.

Put aside the exquisite timing of Biden’s remarks on a day when Israel suffered a terrorist attack, and they are still quite something. For one thing, President Obama is about to join a GCC summit in Saudi Arabia. Does Biden really think the Arabs pay no attention to how we treat our closest friends and allies? Does he not know that they will read all of this and not gloat– but instead wonder when they will be getting the same treatment?

Obama doctrine, Global chaos and its implications for Israel and the Jewish people

...Despite the fact that anti-Semitism, assimilation and intermarriage will continue to erode the vitality of Diaspora Jewish communities, increasing numbers of committed Jews will make aliya, either by choice or to enable their children to grow up in a society in which they wear their Jewishness as a badge of honor. Despite the trials and tribulations of the Jewish people, we can rejoice in the knowledge that our future remains assured with Israel. Over the past half century, the Jewish state has made extraordinary progress, is self-sufficient and is proud of our achievements as the startup nation.

Isi Leibler..
Candidly Speaking From Jerusalem..
23 march '16..

President Barack Obama’s determination to downgrade U.S. international power has generated massive global instability and chaos with especially ominous implications for Israel.

The Obama policies have undermined longstanding alliances within the Western bloc. By supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and allying with terrorist and rogue states like Iran, the U.S. has alienated Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which consider themselves abandoned and betrayed.

The wooing and groveling toward Iran has empowered the world’s leading Islamic terrorist state, enabled it to become a threshold nuclear power and exacerbated the conflict between the Shiites and Sunnis, which has led to the emergence of new Islamic barbarian groups like ISIS. The Islamic fundamentalists have reintroduced the Dark Ages to the region in which mass murder, rape and beheadings of civilians have become rampant.

Obama’s vacillating policies have resulted in the weakening of Arab states like Syria and Libya with consequent horrendous casualties and the displacement of millions. When controlled by the despotic Moammar Gadhafi, Libya had voluntarily abrogated its nuclear ambitions and undertaken to eschew terrorism. Obama’s enthusiasm to “democratize” the country led to the overthrow of the dictatorship, the assassination of the American ambassador and the transformation of Libya into a major terrorist launching pad which may ultimately necessitate military intervention.

The mayhem and terror in the region has created a severe refugee crisis which could accelerate the demise of the European Union and permanently alter the demographic base of Europe even leading to the erosion of European civilization.

The downgraded U.S. influence enabled President Vladimir Putin to reassert Russia as a major global power and achieve greater influence in the Middle East than the Soviets ever attained. Most Arab states today regard Russia as a more reliable ally than the U.S.

On top of all this, Obama’s domestic political legacy has led to widespread alienation against the entire political establishment and the emergence of populist candidates, such as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, who are supported merely because they challenge the existing order. At the same time, it is extraordinary that according to surveys, the leading candidates of both the Republican and Democratic parties, Trump and Hillary Clinton, respectively, are detested by half of their own party constituencies.

The Obama policies have led to uniquely Jewish negative repercussions:

The hostility to the Israeli government by its principal ally has provided enormous impetus to its adversaries. The double standards employed by the administration and classification of Israel as morally equivalent to the terrorists and the failure to directly reprimand Palestinian leaders engaged in incitement to murder Jews and sanctification of the killers as national “martyrs” — reflect morally outrageous behavior. At a time when almost half a million Syrians were butchered and 4 million displaced from their homes, the focus of U.S. ire was against Israeli construction of homes even in the Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem. This blatant hostility by the Obama administration provided global encouragement to anti-Israeli forces and gave the green light to the Europeans to pressure Israel to make further unilateral concessions and recognize the indefensible 1949 armistice lines as the basis for permanent borders. In Europe, it is widely believed that Israelis behave like Nazis with genocidal intentions toward the Arabs and represent a greater threat to peace than rogue states like North Korea or Iran.

The Obama administration’s most covert war - by Caroline Glick

The Obama Administration believes it is at war with Israel- not a shooting war, but a political war.

Caroline Glick..
Column One/JPost..
14 January '15..

Over the past several weeks, we have learned that the Obama administration believes it is at war with Israel. The war is not a shooting war, but a political war. Its goal is to bring the government to its knees to the point where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu loses power or begs Obama and his advisers to shepherd Israel through a “peace process” in which Israel will renounce its rights to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

One component of this war is espionage. Last month The Wall Street Journal reported that Israel is a top target for American espionage.

The other component of the administration’s war against Israel is political subversion. Over the past week, the administration has campaigned against the NGO bill sponsored by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked. If the bill, which was approved by the government, becomes law, it will require political NGOs that are principally financed by foreign governments to identify as foreign agents in their official communications and interactions.

Last week, State Department spokesman James Kirby lambasted the bill at an official briefing. Among other things, Kirby rejected Shaked’s claim that her bill is less restrictive than the US’s own Foreign Agents Registration Act. Kirby offered no substantiation of his claim.

Earlier this week, US Ambassador Dan Shapiro met with Shaked. Following their meeting, the US Embassy published two statements attacking the NGO law. In one of them, the embassy sought to substantiate Kirby’s claim regarding FARA. By the embassy’s telling, FARA relates only to agents whose action are directly guided by foreign governments, while Shaked’s NGO bill relates to entities that receive financing from foreign governments whether or not their actions are directed by the government financiers.

The embassy’s claim is deeply misleading.

As attorney Lorri Lowenthal Marcus explained this week in The Jewish Press, in practice, the burden of proof that US entities are not directed by foreign governments that fund them falls on the entities, not on the US government. In her words, the US law “uses ambiguous words and tests which are far more likely to lead to over-broad applications and chilling of speech than does the straightforward Israeli proposal’s standard.”

Moreover, whereas Shaked’s proposed NGO law would fine entities that fail to abide by reporting restrictions, under FARA, US entities that fail to abide by the restrictions of the law can face both fines and up to five years in prison.

The duplicitous nature of the administration’s assault on Shaked’s bill is all the more obvious when we consider how senior US officials view these politicized organizations.

Currently, the State Department is slowly fulfilling a federal court order to publish the emails Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton sent from her private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. Over the past several weeks, the department has published a number of emails regarding Israel that reveal the depth of hostility Clinton’s closest advisers harbored toward Israel.

Last week, one such email demonstrated that Clinton’s senior anti-Israel advisers viewed radical Israeli-registered NGOs as agents for the administration to use in order to carry out covert anti-Israel policies.

The email in question is a letter Clinton received in December 2011 from retired ambassador Thomas Pickering. Clinton asked her chief of staff to print out his letter.

Pickering’s illustrious career reached its peak during Bill Clinton’s administration. Clinton’s husband appointed Pickering, a former ambassador to Israel, to serve as undersecretary of state for policy planning, the third-most senior position at the State Department.

Pickering retired in 2001, at the end of the Clinton years. Since retiring, he has enjoyed the status of elder statesman among the American foreign policy elite. He has also been a loyal supporter and lobbyist for Iran, and a signatory on numerous plans to stick it to Israel.

In his letter to Clinton, Pickering recommended using leftist NGOs – including Peace Now, which he mentioned by name – to destabilize the political situation on the ground in Israel.

To be a free people in our land, maybe.

...The bad relationship between Netanyahu and Obama is not a personality clash. It is directly due to the fact that Netanyahu will not follow instructions from the White House. And that is the way it has to be, because what Barack Obama wants is not necessarily what is good for Israel. Maybe Buji and Tzipi think they will be strong enough to resist once they are in power. But as I wrote last week, you don’t make a deal with the devil and ask for your soul back.

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
14 March '15..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2015/03/independence-is-the-election-issue/

As Israel’s election draws near, there is one issue that is of overriding importance.

No, it is not the question of whether to try to restart negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. And it is not related to the price of apartments, income inequality or any other domestic issue.

It is the question of whether Israel will remain a sovereign, independent state, or whether it will become a satellite of the US, a ‘banana republic’ without an independent foreign policy.

I had a discussion this weekend over our Shabbat table with my son-in-law. “Look,” he said. “Buji and Tzipi aren’t going to make a deal with the Palestinians. Everyone knows that there’s no common ground. So what’s left are the domestic issues. And Netanyahu has failed miserably. It’s time for a change.” He speaks for many Israelis, especially young ones. But he’s missing the point.

Leave aside the question of whether PM Netanyahu has indeed failed, if indeed a different government would do a better job of making it possible for young people to afford an apartment, relieve the stress on the hospitals, improve the educational system, etc. Leave aside the question of whether a different government would have dealt with Hamas more effectively last summer.

Let’s say, בא נגיד, as Israelis like to say, that there really is no significant difference in the real-life security policies of Netanyahu’s Likud and Buji Herzog’s Zionist Union. Let’s say that Netanyahu would be more open to ceding territory to the Arabs than he says he would be, and that Herzog would be less ready to make a deal than he says.

Even if all this were true, there is still one elephant left in the room. And that is the relationship with the Obama Administration. And that elephant is not that Netanyahu has a poor one — it’s that Buji and Tzipi’s is too good.

Netanyahu went to Washington and stood up for Israel’s interests, receiving a huge amount of abuse from Obama partisans in America and the Left in Israel in return. There is no doubt that the vindictive Obama will do his best to punish him personally in any way that he can. But the PM believed that his action would possibly tip the balance against an agreement with Iran that would legitimize rather then retard its progress toward nuclear weapons, and that preventing this is of the utmost importance.

A good example of how not to treat an ally

...Obama and administration officials continue to insist that Israel is an ally. Then why do they consistently support its enemies’ narrative that Israel’s actions are disproportionate or worse? Why do they continue to suggest that Israel’s defense is morally equivalent to Hamas’ offense?

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
02 October '14..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2014/10/how-not-to-treat-an-ally/



From President Obama’s remarks before meeting with PM Netanyahu:

I think we also recognize that we have to find ways to change the status quo so that both Israeli citizens are safe in their own homes and schoolchildren in their schools from the possibility of rocket fire, but also that we don’t have the tragedy of Palestinian children being killed as well.

It’s not exactly his words that I find objectionable. Only a monster could think that it isn’t tragic when children are killed. It is what the statement suggests.

It is as if Obama is holding out his two hands: on one sit endangered Israelis and on the other dead Palestinian children. The suggestion is that the two things are equivalent. But in reality, they are like night and day. Hamas is doing its best to kill Israelis. Israel is trying to defend itself while hurting Gaza residents as little as possible, consistent with fighting a war.

That’s obvious. But there is more. The emphasis on “Palestinian children” serves to recall the ugly meme — a blood libel, really — that is popular in anti-Israel circles, that the IDF deliberately targets children. This is not only entirely false but an inversion of reality — it is Palestinian terrorists who have gone after Jewish children in numerous attacks.

Of course Obama would never say that, and probably deny it if asked. But his carefully-worded statement brings it to mind.

It is also notable that the President doesn’t use the word ‘Hamas’. Neither did any of the anti-Israel demonstrators during the war. The suggestion is that Israel attacked ‘Gaza’, not Hamas, even though Israel’s air and ground operations specifically targeted Hamas assets and sources of rocket fire.

Yes, this is subtle. But I don’t doubt that it is deliberate. If you didn’t know better, you might not realize that rather than a story about suffering Gaza residents, this is actually the saga of a continuous effort by terrorists to kill Israelis, broken up by Israel’s attempts at deterrence.

Defiance of US pressure, a Ben-Gurion's legacy

...Ben-Gurion was aware that fending off pressure constituted an integral part of Jewish history, a prerequisite for survival and long-term growth, militarily, diplomatically and economically. On the other hand, succumbing to pressure intensifies further pressure, threatening to transform Israel from a unique strategic asset to a liability.

Yoram Ettinger..
Israel Hayom..
15 November '13..
Posted before Shabbat..

Upon the 40th anniversary of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion's death, Israeli and American policy-makers should study the 1948 legacy of Israel's Founding Father: Defiance of disproportionate U.S. pressure forged Israel into a national security producer rather than a national security consumer, catapulted the Jewish state into the most productive U.S. strategic ally, enhanced the long-term U.S.-Israel mutually beneficial ties (following short-term tension), and advanced the national security of both the U.S. and Israel.

On May 29, 1949, toward the end of Israel's War of Independence, which consumed 6,000 Israeli lives (1 percent of the population!), the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, James McDonald, delivered a scolding message from President Harry Truman to Prime Minister Ben-Gurion. According to McDonald, Truman "interpreted Israel's attitude [rejecting the land-for-peace principle; annexing West Jerusalem; refusing to absorb Arab refugees; pro-actively soliciting a massive Jewish ingathering] as dangerous to peace and as indicating disregard of the U.N. General Assembly resolutions of November 29, 1947 [the partition plan] and December 11, 1948 [refugees and internationalization of Jerusalem], reaffirming insistence that territorial compensation should be made [by Israel] for territory taken in excess of November 29 [40% beyond the partition plan!], and that tangible refugee concessions should be made [by Israel] now as essential, preliminary to any prospect for general settlement. The operative part of the note was the implied threat that the U.S. would reconsider its attitude toward Israel," ("My Mission in Israel 1948-1951," James McDonald).

Ben-Gurion's response -- with a population of 650,000 Jews, a $1 billion gross domestic product and a slim military force in 1949, compared with 6.3 million Jews, a $260 billion GDP and one of the world's finest military forces in 2013 -- was resolute, as described by McDonald: "[Truman's] note was unrealistic and unjust. It ignored the facts that the partition resolution was no longer applicable since its basic conditions had been destroyed by Arab aggression which the Jews successfully resisted. ... To whom should we turn if Israel were again attacked? Would the U.S. send arms or troops? The United States is a powerful country; Israel is a small and a weak one. We can be crushed, but we will not commit suicide."

McDonald further wrote: "Two U.N. Security Council resolutions passed [with U.S. support] have implicitly threatened sanctions if Israeli troops were not withdrawn [from the 'occupied Negev']." Ben-Gurion reacted defiantly: "Israel has been attacked by six Arab States. As a small country, Israel must reserve the right of self-defense even if it goes down fighting. ... As Ben-Gurion once put it to me, 'What Israel has won on the battlefield, it is determined not to yield at the [U.N. Security] Council table.'"

'Heroes to Heroes' - To be treated like royalty, and to know they're not alone.

New Jersey-based organization 'Heroes to Heroes' brings groups of former U.S. soldiers to Israel, where their distress, they feel, doesn't fall on deaf ears.

Yardena Schwartz..
Haaretz..
31 October '13..

Greg Grutter did four deployments in Iraq and three in Afghanistan, where he suffered traumatic brain injuries after being the victim of a suicide bomber, and one year later, a roadside bomb. Last month the Rhode Island native -- who was discharged a year ago, suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) -- was in Israel, along with nine fellow war veterans all hoping to recover. “I’m on the path to getting better, and this trip has gone a long way to help,” said the 47-year-old father who has undergone three operations for neck injuries suffered in Afghanistan.

The idea that former U.S. soldiers with horrific memories of their deployments in the Middle East would go to Israel to heal isn’t exactly a given. But Teaneck, New Jersey native Judy Schaffer was convinced that a trip to Israel would hasten their emotional and spiritual recovery.

“There a lot of great veterans organizations in America, and they are doing great things. But it’s very hard to restore someone’s faith and spirit...in New Jersey or Montana. I think that Israel is the only place where that can be done...quickly,” explained Schaffer, founder of Heroes to Heroes, an American non-profit organization that brings traumatized U.S. veterans to Israel for a journey of spiritual healing.

Schaffer, daughter of a World War II veteran and a granddaughter of two World War I veterans, envisioned a Birthright-type trip designed meticulously for non-Jewish American war vets -- of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Since she founded the organization in 2011, it has organized and financed three Israel trips for war vets.

Paula Stern - When Others Speak....

Paula R. Stern..
A Soldier's Mother..
17 January '13..

When others speak in your name, they usually get it wrong. Sometimes, I write about what is happening with my family or what is on my mind and sometimes, I see a few news articles and realize there is an underlying thread that ties them together. Such it is today.

A few days ago, Obama was quoted as saying that Israel doesn't know what is in its best interest. A Canadian network (CTV), quoted Israel's capital as Tel Aviv; and Admiral William Fallon says that Israel won't be able to take on Iran alone.

I feel like the person sitting in the room while all around me, people are talking ABOUT me, instead of just asking - so allow me to respond.

Let's start with the easiest one...

Dear Canada Television Station (CTV) - let's make a deal, you don't tell me where my capital is, and I won't lecture you on the concept of researching reports before you make yourselves look stupid. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. You want to argue about East Jerusalem, West Jerusalem, North or South...you want to discuss Old City vs. New City - that's up to you - but you can't erase the entire city because you're too lazy to read a map. Jerusalem - all of it - yes, that's right - all of it, united, undivided, eternally ours and eternally our capital.

When rivers of blood flowed through our streets but we were loved.

Not that many years ago — 19, to be precise — when the disastrous Oslo Accords were signed, the Israeli government and those at its helm were very much loved and admired in Washington. Israel, then, got accustomed to warmth and great popularity in the White House. Afterward, rivers of blood flowed through our streets — the fruits of the Oslo leaders' diplomacy — and those leaders became all the more popular.

Nadav Shragai..
Israel Hayom..
17 January '13..

During the Oslo process, Israel felt warmth from the White House. Then rivers of blood began to flow here.

If it had been up to U.S. President Barack Obama or even previous American presidents who were friendlier to Israel, Jerusalem would have been left sealed off and divided. If it had been up to the Americans, the United Nations would have controlled the Old City to this day; Israel would have been prevented from uniting Jerusalem; the alleyway at the Western Wall would still be as ridiculously narrow as it was during the British Mandate; the Golan Heights would have remained devoid of Jewish settlement; Israel would have been prevented from bombing the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981; and David Ben-Gurion would have withdrawn from his “occupation" of the Negev in 1948.

If it were up to the U.S., it is very possible that the state of Hamastan would have extended not just throughout the south, but would have reached the gates of Kfar Saba, Netanya and Tel Aviv, and tens of thousands of Jews would have been expelled from their homes in Judea and Samaria in the same way they were expelled from Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip.

WSJ - Why Israel Doesn't Trust Obama

Wall Street Journal..
31 August '12..





Barack Obama is fond of insisting that he "has Israel's back." Maybe he should mention that to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

In remarks to journalists in London quoted by the Guardian, General Martin Dempsey warned that any Israeli attack on Iran would "clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran's nuclear programs." He also said economic sanctions on Iran were having an effect and needed more time to work, but that the good they were doing "could be undone if [Iran] was attacked prematurely."

And to underscore the firmness of his opposition to an Israeli strike, the Chairman added that "I don't want to be complicit if they choose to do it."

We don't know what exactly Gen. Dempsey thinks American non-complicity might entail in the event of a strike. Should the Administration refuse to resupply Israel with jets and bombs, or condemn an Israeli strike at the U.N.? Nor do we know if the General was conducting freelance diplomacy or sending a signal from an Administration that feels the same way but doesn't want to say so during a political season.

Whatever the case, the remarks were counterproductive and oddly timed, with this week's report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran's nuclear programs haven't been slowed in the least by U.S. or international sanctions. In fact, they are accelerating.