Two vice presidential visits to Israel, but as different as night and day. - by Stephen M. Flatow

Watching Pence’s address, I could not help but recall the very different actions of the last vice president who visited Israel.

Stephen M. Flatow..
JNS.org..
28 January '18..

Anybody who watched Vice President Mike Pence’s address to the Knesset had to be deeply impressed by his heartfelt solidarity with Israel. His repeated pledges of support for the Jewish state were authentic and unwavering.

On Nov. 10, 2016, Vice President Joe Biden (left) meets with then Vice President-elect Mike Pence at the White House. Credit: Office of the Vice President of the United States.
Unlike the previous president, who seemed to think the Jews took an interest in Eretz Yisrael only because of the Holocaust, Pence did not shy away from affirming the Jewish people’s ancient ties to the land of Israel.

“It was the faith of the Jewish people that gathered the scattered fragments of a people and made them whole again, that took the language of the Bible and the landscape of the Psalms and made them live again,” Pence said. “And it was faith that rebuilt the ruins of Jerusalem and made them strong again. The miracle of Israel is an inspiration to the world. And the United States of America is proud to stand with Israel and her people, as allies and cherished friends.”

Watching Pence’s address, I could not help but recall the very different actions of the last vice president who visited Israel.

Joe Biden visited Israel in March 2010. Almost exactly at the moment Biden was speaking at a press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “somebody” leaked to the press that the Israeli government supposedly had just announced plans to build 1,600 Jewish homes in “occupied East Jerusalem.”

(Continue to Full Post)

Stephen M. Flatow, a vice president of the Religious Zionists of America, is an attorney in New Jersey. He is the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995.

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. 

.

Remembering what winning in a long game requires (Divest This!)

...Winning in a long game requires forgoing today’s single marshmallow for tomorrow’s two. In other words, it requires resisting impatience, thinking in terms of decades, rather than weeks, and refusing to allow foes or friends to turn support for the Jewish state into a domestic partisan football.

Divest This@Elder of Ziyon..
27 February '17..

Fools, apparently, rush in where angels fear to go. At the same time, he who hesitates is lost. So it seems that folk wisdom doesn’t provide obvious advice on how fast to move when military or political advantage opens up.

As mentioned last time, timing is one of the crucial ingredients for any sort of political or military strategy. And for a small nation such as Israel, which has been at the center of military and political conflict since the nation’s birth, deciding between “full-speed-ahead,” “steady-as-she-goes” and “proceed-with-caution” is a routine decision.

At this moment in history, when a U.S. President hostile to the Jewish state has been replaced by one respectful of its interests, there is an understandable tendency to want to rush ahead and gain as much advantage as possible. In some cases, this is a wise choice, especially in places like the UN where American backing of Israel has returned with a vengeance.

At the same time, while it might seem that this is the right moment for Israeli politicians to push controversial legislation, or for Israel’s supporters abroad to assume a friendly White House and Congress means brighter days ahead, there are a number of reasons to move cautiously through the today’s uncharted waters of US and international politics.

(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. 

.

NYT in Full-Fledged Frothing Freakout Frenzy Over Friedman Pick - by Ira Stoll

...Friedman isn’t being chosen for the job of secretary of state or national security adviser — or even special Middle East coordinator. His job as ambassador would be to represent and counsel the president and the secretary of state, not to set the policy. Yet the Times doesn’t seem willing to provide its readers with grounded, realistic perspective on this. It prefers, instead, to fuel the anti-Trump panic prevalent among its urban, liberal readers. That’s not independent journalism. It’s just a left-wing echo chamber.

Ira Stoll..
Algemeiner.com..
19 December '16..

How freaked out is the New York Times over Donald Trump’s decision to nominate David Friedman as the American ambassador to Israel?

Extremely, to judge by the newspaper’s completely over-the-top coverage of the nomination.

The Times first covered the news of the nomination with a hostile article in Friday’s paper that the Algemeiner responded to that day.

Then the New York Times did something it reserves for the rarest of situations. It ran the same news again, this time on page one. Saturday’s paper piled on with a front page story headlined: “David Friedman, Choice for Envoy To Israel, Is Hostile to Two State Efforts.” That article was the product of a team of no less than eight — eight! — Times personnel, working from four different cities: “Isabel Kershner reported from Jerusalem, and Sheryl Gay Stolberg from Washington. Reporting was contributed by Russ Buettner and Maggie Haberman from New York, Sewell Chan from London, and Irit Pazner Garshowitz from Jerusalem. Jack Begg and Alain Delaquérière contributed research.”

(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. 

.

Someone deeply committed to Israel’s security and to its well-being - by Elliott Abrams

...I do not share all of Mr. Friedman’s views, but I am delighted that the United States will soon have an envoy who can do what the Israeli ambassador in Washington can do: call home and speak to the top guy. I’m very pleased that we’ll have an ambassador who has known the country to which he is accredited for decades and won’t need briefing books to learn its geography. I think it’s great that we’ll have someone deeply committed to Israel’s security and to its well-being

Elliott Abrams..
Pressure Points..
18 December '16..
Link: http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2016/12/18/the-next-ambassador-to-israel/

President-Elect Trump’s choice of David M. Friedman as his ambassador to Israel has occasioned both appropriate news coverage, and a barrage of nasty, ignorant, politically biased comments.

Most of those comments (including the poison-pen editorial in The New York Times) have informed readers that Mr. Friedman is unfit for this post because he is a “bankruptcy lawyer” lacking diplomatic experience. I was previously unaware that being a “bankruptcy lawyer” was equivalent to a crime of moral turpitude, but that is in any event an odd description of Mr. Friedman. In fact he is one of the top lawyers in that field in the United States, year after year being so listed in articles about the very best American lawyers. The New York Times tells us that he has since 1994 been a partner at a firm called Kasowitz, Benson, Torres, & Friedman, but does not bother to tell readers that he is in fact the Friedman of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres, & Friedman–a firm whose name was changed when he joined it, and which he has helped build to about 350 lawyers in seven cities. He is also a self-made man, the son of an Orthodox rabbi who came to the practice of law without the benefit of wealth or fancy connections.

To the Times all that is irrelevant; presumably they would prefer a fellow at a white-shoe Wall Street firm whose father or grandfather had been a diplomat, who belonged to the right clubs, and who rather than soil himself with the actual practice of law opens doors and makes connections. But I doubt most Americans take that view, and Mr. Trump did not. I’ve met Mr. Friedman once; we connected because I have a son who works in the Kasowitz firm. What do you learn from one meeting? Only that you’re dealing with one smart cookie, and that his involvement with Israeli affairs for decades has given him a far better insight than the average diplomat.

Surprise! Four articles in the NY Times against David Friedman in one day - by Elder of Ziyon

...I still have not seen a decent argument against moving the embassy to Jerusalem within the Green Line, and the NYT is not adding any. It obfuscates the issue, making it sound like the Arabs have a valid claim on Israel within the Green Line. US diplomats visit Jerusalem routinely without any Arab objection, because after all it is where Israel's leaders live and work. It is a silly fiction that the 45 minute drive between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem is needed for peace. This isn't a reasoned objection to Friedman. This is an obsession.

Elder of Ziyon..
17 December '16..

Friday's New York Times had four articles against Donald Trump's choice to be the US ambassador to Israel.

Yes - four articles in one day. Two "news" articles, one editorial, and one op-ed.

The main news article on Friedman was "David Friedman, Choice for Envoy to Israel, Is Hostile to Two-State Efforts."

David M. Friedman, an Orthodox Jewish bankruptcy lawyer from Long Island, is Donald J. Trump’s pick for ambassador to Israel, despite his lack of diplomatic experience and frequent statements that flout decades of bipartisan American policy.
“Bankruptcy law and involvement with settlements are not normally seen as an appropriate qualifications for the job,” one of its former occupants, Martin S. Indyk, said on Friday. “But then these are not normal times.”

Nah, no bias there, to quote Indyk first. As if no American president has ever appointed an ambassadorship to someone with no diplomatic experience before. Oh, wait - Obama and previous presidents have done so routinely, handing out ambassadorships to fundraisers fortheir campaigns, sometimes with good results and sometimes with embarrassingly bad results.

(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. 

.

Demonstrating that US stand on construction not acceptable - by Dr. Aaron Lerner

"We are familiar with the American position [on construction in Jerusalem]. It is not new. It is also not acceptable to us." Indeed? Let's stop nickel and diming. Its time for a win-win. A surge in construction to lower housing prices, benefit the economy AND provide employment to Palestinians in the construction trades as well as building products industries.

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
6 July '16..





"We are familiar with the American position [on construction in Jerusalem]. It is not new. It is also not acceptable to us."
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 6 July 2016

Let's put the cards on the table.

We have had a building freeze for years in Jerusalem

Ditto for Judea and Samaria.

Almost all the building activity one sees is based on permits issued years ago.

And the announcements that we keep getting slammed by Washington for?

Mostly step x out of 20x steps.

Yes pain. Not much gain.

And that's the bizarre thing.

That Obama Administration spokesman slamming us for announcing step x out of 20x steps for what at most is a couple of hundred units would employ virtually the same verbiage for a thousand units, ten thousand or even a hundred thousand units.

The same column inches, same seconds on the news.

Trust us! Some stunning insights into an evolving alliance

...Oren doesn’t say that the president is anti-Israel. Rather, “Obama is pro-Israel — but his is a certain mythical, pre-1967 Israel that never really existed,” he said, a time when the state was “less democratic, less open, less respectful of minorities.”

Arnold/Frimet Roth..
This Ongoing War..
15 June '15..

An important new book, a memoir by Prof. Michael Oren who served as Israel's ambassador to the US between May 2009 and September 2013, is getting media coverage this week. His vantage point as both an insider and a noted historian at a time of huge importance is an invaluable one.

It's worth noting that, unlike some other key ambassadorial appointments, Oren did not get the job through his being close to prime minister Netanyahu. In fact, as far as we can tell, he's never been regarded as a Netanyahu crony. Nor has he been associated with especially robust viewpoints about the US/Israel relationship. Until now.

He calls "Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide", to be published next Tuesday, a book written "with love — and fear." He's not kidding.

We have not read it (it's not yet available in the stores) but were struck some things said by the author and his reviewer in an article by Gary Rosenblatt in the current issue of The Jewish Week NY. Under the title "No Way To Treat An Ally", it's (in the newspaper's words) a "devastating insider’s account of White House distancing from Israel." Some selected verbatim quotes:

As he notes in his foreword, “‘ally’ is a simple, beautiful word” that evokes “warmth,” fitting for the “special relationship,” said to exist between Israel and the U.S. But that relationship also includes “bitter differences,” he reminds us at the outset. And much of the next 375 pages is a carefully recalled, detailed and riveting first-hand account of how the Washington-Jerusalem ties have unraveled — undone by mistrust, mistakes and missed opportunities — with Obama in the role of bully-in-chief.

(Read 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, 

.

Seriously, Do Israelis Really Think the U.S. Will Come to Their Aid?

...For its own fantasy of turning a voracious, extremist Islamic regime into the "stripper who becomes the girl next door," the current U.S. Administration will grant Iran its nuclear weapons. If they end up turned on Israel, so be it. No matter who wins the election this week in Israel, if and when Iran has a nuclear bomb, there is not a thing the current U.S. Administration will do to help Israel. The Israelis will have only themselves to rely on.

Bassam Tawil..
Gatestone Institute..
15 March '15..

There is about to be a mistake. The only country in the region of which all the other countries are envious -- for opportunity, equal justice under law, freedom to speak without the 2 a.m. knock on the door -- has an election this week. Its citizens are tired of war -- right on schedule for its enemies' plans to destroy it. The Israelis are meant to be tired of war; that is why it is called "a war of attrition."

Many Israelis seem to be counting on some deeply wished-for love from the current U.S. Administration. What they may not want to see is that their unrequited love for the U.S. runs far deeper than any disagreement with Israel's current prime minister. Just ask Syria, ask Iraq, ask Yemen, ask Libya, ask Saudi Arabia, ask the Emirates, ask Kuwait, ask Egypt. The current U.S. Administration does not even send weapons to help; it sends meals-ready-to-eat, perhaps with the occasional unserious bombing, and tells others to do any serious work themselves. Israel and the rest of us in the region -- as Iran has already encircled all the oil fields and is now taking over Iraq -- have no more to look forward to than that.

The Israelis may be conning themselves into thinking that if they could just stay friendly with America, America will not "let Israel down" -- whatever that is supposed to mean. Perhaps they think that the U.S. will not let Iran acquire a nuclear weapons capability -- as the U.S. has been promising for twenty years. But the U.S. has already made clear that it will fast-track, or slow-track, Iran to nuclear weapons capability.

Or maybe it means that many Israelis think that if Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, if Israel could just offer up a more friendly face, the U.S. would, in a crisis, come to Israel's help.

They could not be more wrong.

Israel’s next 22 months by Caroline Glick

...Yet as Obama has made clear both throughout his tenure in office, and, over the past week through Malley’s appointment and Menendez’s indictment, Obama holds sole responsibility for the deterioration of our ties with our primary ally. And as his actions have also made clear, Herzog and Livni at the helm will receive no respite in US pressure. Their willingness to make concessions to the Palestinians that Netanyahu refuses to make will merely cause Obama to move the goalposts further down the field. Given his goal of abandoning the US alliance with Israel, no concession that Israel will deliver will suffice. And so we need to ask ourselves, which leader will do a better job of limiting the danger and waiting Obama out while maintaining sufficient overall US support for Israel to rebuild the alliance after Obama has left the White House.

Caroline Glick..
Column One/JPost..
12 March '15..

The next 22 months until President Barack Obama leaves office promise to be the most challenging period in the history of US-Israel relations.

Now unfettered by electoral concerns, over the past week Obama exposed his ill-intentions toward Israel in two different ways.

First, the Justice Department leaked its intention to indict Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez on corruption charges. Menendez is the ranking Democratic member, and the former chairman, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is also the most outspoken Democratic critic of Obama’s policy of appeasing the Iranian regime.

As former US federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote this week at PJMedia, “It is perfectly reasonable to believe that Menendez may be guilty of corruption offenses and that his political opposition on Iran is factoring into the administration’s decision to charge him. Put it another way, if Menendez were running interference for Obama on the Iran deal, rather than trying to scupper it, I believe he would not be charged.”

The Menendez prosecution tells us that Obama wishes to leave office after having vastly diminished support for Israel among Democrats. And he will not hesitate to use strong-arm tactics against his fellow Democrats to achieve his goal.

We already experienced Obama’s efforts in this sphere in the lead-up to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the joint houses of Congress on March 3 with his campaign to pressure Democratic lawmakers to boycott Netanyahu’s address.

Now, with his move against Menendez, Obama made clear that support for Israel – even in the form of opposition to the nuclear armament of Iran – will be personally and politically costly for Democrats.

The long-term implications of Obama’s moves to transform US support for Israel into a partisan issue cannot by wished away. It is possible that his successor as the head of the Democratic Party will hold a more sympathetic view of Israel. But it is also possible that the architecture of Democratic fund-raising and grassroots support that Obama has been building for the past six years will survive his presidency and that as a consequence, Democrats will have incentives to oppose Israel.

The reason Obama is so keen to transform Israel into a partisan issue was made clear by the second move he made last week.

Last Thursday, US National Security Adviser Susan Rice announced that the NSC’s Middle East Coordinator Phil Gordon was stepping down and being replaced by serial Israel-basher Robert Malley.

Malley, who served as an NSC junior staffer during the Clinton administration, rose to prominence in late 2000 when, following the failed Camp David peace summit in July 2000 and the outbreak of the Palestinian terror war, Malley co-authored an op-ed in The New York Times blaming Israel and then-prime minister Ehud Barak for the failure of the negotiations.

What was most remarkable at the time about Malley’s positions was that they completely contradicted Bill Clinton’s expressed views. Clinton placed the blame for the failure of the talks squarely on then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s shoulders.

Not only did Arafat reject Barak’s unprecedented offer of Palestinian statehood and sovereignty over all of Gaza, most of Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem including the Temple Mount, he refused to make a counter-offer. And then two months later, he opened the Palestinian terror war.

The bottom line? That Israel must rely only on itself

...There are those who expect our small and brave country to pay, once again, the price for the blindness and indifference of nations of the world to the fate of the Jews. It is shameful and unfortunate that there are those among us who display, for petty political agendas, that same carelessness, and try to divert the public's attention from the basic fact that Iran does not differentiate between Left and Right and not even between Jews and Arabs in Israel.

Dr. Haim Shine..
Israel Hayom..
23 February '15..

The U.S. government is involved up to its neck in Israel's upcoming elections. U.S. President Barack Obama and his advisers have been trying to grab our country by the throat in an attempt to coerce Israel to act against its existential interests.

The White House prefers that the weak Left win the March 17 elections and establish a leftist government that would have no problem with making dangerous concessions such as returning to the 1967 borders, dividing Jerusalem and granting the Palestinians the right of return.

At a time when the whole world is under attack by Islamic terrorism, Obama is determined to sign a deal with the regime of the ayatollahs in Iran that would enable Iran to continue advancing its nuclear program without interference. An American president who enables terrorists to get their hands on nuclear weapons would be signing a death warrant for Western civilization.

Furthermore, Obama has yet to free himself from the misguided notion that has been dictating U.S. policy in the Middle East for many years, according to which a resolution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict based an Israeli return to the 1967 borders would turn the region into the most peaceful place in the world. This line of thought is something only Israel would pay the price for when reality sets in.

The ongoing attempt to hide America's conduct over Iran should raise serious concerns in every human being. America's demonstration of weakness and fatigue in the negotiations, its treachery towards its allies, and its strong desire to create a facade of peace and tolerance poses a serious threat to the entire world.

There are those who expect our small and brave country to pay, once again, the price for the blindness and indifference of nations of the world to the fate of the Jews. It is shameful and unfortunate that there are those among us who display, for petty political agendas, that same carelessness, and try to divert the public's attention from the basic fact that Iran does not differentiate between Left and Right and not even between Jews and Arabs in Israel.

Variation On the Bird-Jew Theme by Sarah Honig

...Our slavish striving not to incur more wrath makes just about as much sense as it did for the two Jews in the following variation on the bird-Jew theme. These Jews faced a firing squad. One of them cursed the executioner who offered him a blindfold. The other was horrified and exclaimed in trepidation: “Why are you making him angry? You’re going to get us killed!”

Shalom Aleichem: although realizing
he’s about to be put to death anyway,
the bird-Jew played along with his
executioner

Sarah Honig..
Another Tack..
19 February '15..

In his autobiography, legendary Yiddish author Shalom Aleichem recounts a harrowing story his grandfather had told him about “the bird-Jew.”

That was how the grandfather called Noah, a pious Jewish innkeeper who lived in constant dread of his Russian landlord, the village squire. Trembling, Noah headed for the manor to renew his lease. His timing was off, because the courtyard was full of festive guests ready to go hunting.

The squire, in a jovial mood, agreed to extend the agreement if Noah would climb the stable roof and pretend to be a bird – so he can shoot him. Fearful of angering the nobleman, Noah obsequiously did his bidding. He clambered up as ordered, bent forward, flung his arms sideways and assumed a birdlike pose. At that instant the squire fired and Noah fell, as any slain bird would.

Although realizing he’s about to be put to death anyway, the bird-Jew played along with his executioner, still absurdly terrified of what might happen if he didn’t. This is the cringing mentality, the fear of giving offense to one’s mortal enemies, which Zionism was established to eradicate.

But not with full success, it seems.

You can take the Jew out of the Diaspora, but not all the Diaspora out of all Jews. Israel’s Left and its media mouthpieces are prime examples. To hear them, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has unpardonably angered the nobleman from the Oval Office. It was Netanyahu’s duty to obediently assume the role of the bird-Jew and self-destruct to appease his boss.

Otherwise, President Barack Obama might become unfriendly.

Of course there’s the minor matter of the boss having been unfriendly to begin with – inimical in fact. But why quibble about sundry details? Who cares what came first – Netanyahu’s effrontery or Obama’s antagonism?

A Possibility of No UN Palestinian Veto? Obama’s Tempted.

...After spending the last few years bending over backwards trying to demonstrate daylight between the positions of Israel and the United States, the Palestinians have come to believe that sooner or later the president will hand them the diplomatic victory they long for without being forced to pay any price for it. Doing so will be as much a blow to U.S. interests as it will be to Israel, but it’s hard to blame either the Palestinians or the Europeans for thinking that this time, Obama will really betray the Israelis simply in order to harm Netanyahu. If he does, it will mark a new low for an administration that has already turned undermining allies into an art form.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
15 December '14..

This week push may come to shove on the long-simmering feud between President Obama and the Israeli government. With the Palestinians pushing for a United Nations Security Council resolution that would unilaterally recognize their independence in the territory won by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, the administration must decide whether it is truly in its interests to facilitate an end run around the peace process it has sponsored by refusing to veto the measure just to demonstrate its pique at Prime Minister Netanyahu and or undermine his chances for reelection in the March elections. But while the stakes here are high for both Israel, whose isolation could be greatly increased by passage of such a resolution, and Netanyahu, the danger to Obama’s foreign policy and U.S. interests from such a vote is high as well. Just as important, the notion that passage of this resolution has anything to do with promoting peace is farcical.

The Palestinian Authority’s motives for seeking to gain a Security Council vote on recognition of their independence are clear. They claim that the peace negotiations promoted by the U.S. over the years has not brought them closer to their declared goal of gaining a state and that only by having the international community force its hand will Israel ever be willing to retreat to the 1967 lines and let Palestinians enjoy sovereignty and self-determination. That is the argument behind the decisions of several European parliaments to adopt resolutions endorsing Palestinian statehood.

But it must be understood that this campaign is about avoiding a negotiated end to the conflict, not finding a shortcut to one. The Palestinians have, after all, been offered statehood in Gaza, almost all of the West Bank, and a share of Jerusalem three times by the Israelis in 2000, 2001, and 2008. Even Netanyahu’s government arrived at the negotiations sponsored by Secretary of State Kerry in the last year prepared to offer another two-state solution with a prominent advocate of this plan, Tzipi Livni, as their negotiator. But PA leader Mahmoud Abbas blew up those talks just as he fled the table in 2008 when Ehud Olmert offered him virtually everything he had asked for. The obstacle wasn’t Israeli settlements or intransigence, but the fact that Abbas knows it would be political suicide for him to sign any deal that would recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian one, no matter where its borders were drawn.

To whom it may concern in Europe and the US

...We are tired of hearing that “the Palestinians deserve a state.” We are indigenous here, not them, and their behavior entitles them more to a trial at The Hague than to a state. And they certainly don’t deserve our state, which is the only state they want...

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
11 December '14..
http://abuyehuda.com/2014/12/to-whom-it-may-concern/..





To whom it may concern in Europe and the US:

We are tired of hearing that withdrawal from Judea and Samaria will bring peace. We know and you know that it would bring another Gaza. So stop saying it.

We are tired of hearing that land beyond the Green Line is ‘Palestinian land’. The Green Line is simply an armistice line that has no political significance. You know this too.

We are tired of hearing about the “Palestinian people.” They are no different from the Arabs of Syria or Egypt, from which most of their ancestors migrated in the last 150 years or so. There is no Palestinian language or religion, and until very recently they considered themselves simply ‘Arabs’. Their culture is almost entirely defined by their opposition to the Jewish state.

We are tired of hearing that “the Palestinians deserve a state.” We are indigenous here, not them, and their behavior entitles them more to a trial at The Hague than to a state. And they certainly don’t deserve our state, which is the only state they want.

We are tired of hearing about ‘The Occupation’. As Naftali Bennett said the other day, you can’t be an occupier in your own land.

We are tired of hearing that “settlements are illegal under international law.” They aren’t.

Obama's Curious Rage at Israel

...Think about this. Enraged. Not "alarmed" or "concerned" or "irritated" or even "angered." Anger is a feeling. Rage is a frenzy. Anger passes. Rage feeds on itself. Anger is specific. Rage is obsessional, neurotic. And Mr. Obama—No Drama Obama, the president who prides himself on his cool, a man whose emotional detachment is said to explain his intellectual strength—is enraged. With Israel.

Bret Stephens..
Wall Street Journal..
01 September '14..

Barack Obama "has become 'enraged' at the Israeli government, both for its actions and for its treatment of his chief diplomat, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. " So reports the Jerusalem Post, based on the testimony of Martin Indyk, until recently a special Middle East envoy for the president. The war in Gaza, Mr. Indyk adds, has had "a very negative impact" on Jerusalem's relations with Washington.

Think about this. Enraged. Not "alarmed" or "concerned" or "irritated" or even "angered." Anger is a feeling. Rage is a frenzy. Anger passes. Rage feeds on itself. Anger is specific. Rage is obsessional, neurotic.

And Mr. Obama—No Drama Obama, the president who prides himself on his cool, a man whose emotional detachment is said to explain his intellectual strength—is enraged. With Israel. Which has just been hit by several thousand unguided rockets and 30-odd terror tunnels, a 50-day war, the forced closure of its one major airport, accusations of "genocide" by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, anti-Semitic protests throughout Europe, general condemnation across the world. This is the country that is the object of the president's rage.

Think about this some more. In the summer in which Mr. Obama became "enraged" with Israel, Islamic State terrorists seized Mosul and massacred Shiite soldiers in open pits, Russian separatists shot down a civilian jetliner, Hamas executed 18 "collaborators" in broad daylight, Bashar Assad's forces in Syria came close to encircling Aleppo with the aim of starving the city into submission, a brave American journalist had his throat slit on YouTube by a British jihadist, Russian troops openly invaded Ukraine, and Chinese jets harassed U.S. surveillance planes over international waters.

Mr. Obama or his administration responded to these events with varying degrees of concern, censure and indignation. But rage?

The U.S.-Israel Dispute and What It's Really About

...It takes time to get sanctions in place, often over the opposition of our European allies and usually over the objections of President Obama himself. Obama, in fact, has been a consistent obstacle to sanctions during his presidency. It is reasonable to doubt not only that Obama could crank the sanctions back to where they need to be after a six-month interlude, but that he would even want to. Ramping sanctions back up would also mean the deal failed; it’s reasonable to doubt, as well, that Obama would ever admit it.

Seth Mandel..
Commentary Magazine..
20 November '13..

Usually when the source of U.S.-Israel tensions is revealed to be a simple misunderstanding, the two sides can again breathe easy. But this week’s argument over Iran sanctions relief may have the opposite effect. Commentators on both sides appear to be missing the real significance of the tiff over the dollar value of the sanctions relief sought by President Obama. In yesterday’s edition of the New York Times, a story on sanctions relief contained this:

For his part, Mr. Kerry has questioned publicly whether Mr. Netanyahu is aware of all the details in the agreement. And in some cases, Israeli officials appear to have distorted what Iran would get in return.

At a briefing with international journalists on Wednesday, Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s minister of strategic affairs, said the deal would directly erase $15 billion to $20 billion of what he estimated was the $100 billion the current sanctions are costing Iran annually, and lead to relief of up to $40 billion because of indirect effects. The State Department immediately debunked those numbers, noting the sanctions relief would be for only six months, not a year. And the Americans put the figure at under $10 billion. But Israeli leaders have continued to cite the higher estimates.

The media watchdog CAMERA called attention to the editorialized nature of the reporting–accusations that Israelis “appear to have distorted” the deal instead of simply disagreeing with the estimates. They also note that the reporters say the State Department “debunked” Israel’s numbers, which is manifestly untrue. The State Department denied the Israelis were correct, but Steinitz simply appears to be correctly calculating the sanctions relief were it to be extended to a year, instead of the six months the Obama administration claims. And that’s why this disagreement is more than just a math problem.

As the Times notes, American officials are alarmed by the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “has often raised the specter of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities even if a deal is signed,” yet they fail to make the connection. American officials are pushing back because they think Israel is moving up the date at which a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be prudent. The Israelis are wary of this deal because they think it does the exact same thing. That is, the Israelis aren’t seeking to move up the timing of a strike; they worry that the Americans are in the process of doing that.

Those who demand respect will be respected

...Contrary to claims by the Israeli left, respect for national honor does not represent a child's whim or an excess of pride. It is an essential component in the complex game of international relations. The fear of displeasing one's "friends" by saying "no," or the renouncement of hope in the name of gaining future hypothetical benefits are often the sources of cruel disappointment.

Shraga Blum..
I24 News..
02 November '13..

I was in Europe when the scandal concerning phone tapping by the US National Security Agency broke out. Leaving aside the fact there's a lot of hypocrisy involved in this matter -- as nowadays everyone is spying on everyone else -- it was interesting to observe the immediate reactions from France and Germany, two countries that are friends of the US and are hugely indebted to it since WWII, each for its own reasons.

The anger was palpably felt on both banks of the Rhine, and indignant declarations have poured in rapid succession: "shocked," "unacceptable practices," "broken trust," requests for "clarification," demands that "these processes" should be terminated post haste and so forth.

Being flooded with these reactions for two or three days, I could not help but feel a certain admiration for these two countries that, feeling offended or betrayed, did not hesitate to stand up to the US and demand a little more respect from the greater power, which is moreover their ally.

With all this talk of national honor, I couldn't but make an immediate link between the courageous stance of European leaders, and the ever-timid attitude of their Israeli counterparts -- in all governments alike -- against the United States or other countries that spend their time lecturing us or interfering in the internal affairs of our country.

A recent article in the Times of Israel cited intelligence specialist Ronen Solomon as saying that the US Embassy in Tel Aviv includes an intelligence unit (this was confirmed by Dany Yatom, the former Mossad chief). But no official Israeli reaction has thus far been forthcoming, and we prefer not to irritate the American big brother, citing as we always do the so-called "best interests" -- so elevated that we seem to have lost sight of them.

As far back as my memory goes, I have no recollection of any instances of open criticism by Israeli officials of the sometimes paternalistic, intrusive or authoritarian -- even when delivered through diplomatic channels -- stance of the US toward Israel.

Submitting ourselves to American whims and edicts has become a tradition in Israel; the media is on the lookout for any statements or policy decisions that could "cause a damaging crisis between Jerusalem and Washington," a veritable mantra with local journalists.

Syria, a clear and sobering debacle for Israel

...It all comes back with added force as Israel faces a new year (on the Jewish calendar) with Iran closer than ever to crossing the nuclear threshold. The question—now as then—is how much to work in synch with the U.S. and how much—and at what point—to take matters in one’s own hands.

P. David Hornik..
Frontpagemag.com..
13 September '13..

Saturday marks Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar and, this year, the 40th anniversary of the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War, the greatest trauma in Israeli history.

On the morning of October 6, 1973—the day on which Yom Kippur fell that year—Chief of Staff David Elazar met with Prime Minister Golda Meir and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan to warn that the Egyptian and Syrian armies were about to attack Israel. Elazar urged a preemptive strike; six years earlier, in the Six-Day War, Israel’s preemptive strike had proved highly effective.

But Meir and Dayan, who were under heavy pressure from U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger not to preempt, overruled the chief of staff. The result was near-catastrophic as later that day the Egyptian and Syrian armies attacked first and took battlefield advantages while inflicting heavy casualties.

Israel was able to turn the tide and, with the help of a massive U.S. airlift, prevail. But the price was almost 2700 casualties and a country shocked, depressed, and shaken to its roots.

It all comes back with added force as Israel faces a new year (on the Jewish calendar) with Iran closer than ever to crossing the nuclear threshold. The question—now as then—is how much to work in synch with the U.S. and how much—and at what point—to take matters in one’s own hands.

Israel Hayom reports:

Ever since U.S. President Barack Obama surprised the world by seeking congressional approval for a military strike on Syria, concerns have grown among Israeli government officials in Jerusalem about a decline of America’s status in the Middle East and the implications for Iran’s nuclear program. No Israeli spokesperson has made an official statement on the issue….

On Wednesday, though, addressing a graduation ceremony for navy cadets, both Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon made statements that have been taken as implicitly critical of Obama’s confused, dithering approach to the Syrian chemical-weapons issue.

Netanyahu, invoking a “rule” from the ancient Jewish sage Hillel, said:

Trying to Redefine Pro-Israel

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
08 January '13..

Yesterday Chuck Hagel told the Lincoln Journal Star there wasn’t “one shred of evidence that [he is] anti-Israeli.” President Obama’s nominee to be secretary of defense claimed the criticism of his record and statements on both Israel and Iran is nothing but “falsehoods and distortions.” That’s a message that is being taken up with gusto by Hagel’s defenders on the news talks shows this week. In particular, some of those who are fighting for his confirmation are taking the position that not only is Hagel pro-Israel but that those who have criticized his positions are in fact a noisy, extremist minority that doesn’t speak for American interests or those of American Jewry, or even the people of Israel.

This is a nasty piece of business that was best exemplified by journalist Carl Bernstein who, during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program today, denounced Hagel’s critics as “Likud” supporters that didn’t speak for American Jews like him. Bernstein’s diatribe in which he claimed the prime minister of Israel also didn’t speak for Israel was then praised effusively by fellow guest Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose own reputation as a bitter critic of Israel seemingly gave him the authority to decide what is and isn’t pro-Israel (something that could perhaps only happen on a show hosted by his daughter). Bernstein—a typical example of a public figure who only cites his Jewish heritage so as to enable him to bash supporters of Israel—has as little authority to speak on the subject as Brzezinski, but his comments go to the heart of the effort to push back at criticism of Hagel. The point here isn’t really about false accusations, since Hagel’s opposition to Iran sanctions or the use of force to stop its nuclear program as well as his boasts about standing up to the “Jewish lobby” are a matter of record. The issue here is one more attempt by Israel’s critics to change the terms of discussion on the issue, in order to make those who are outside the national consensus on the U.S.-Israel alliance appear to be mainstream thinkers while those who support it are castigated as extremists.

Proven Wrong About Iran Obama Administration Doesn’t Care

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contention..
31 August '12..

The release yesterday of a new report on Iran’s nuclear program by the International Atomic Energy Agency effectively vindicates everything Israel’s leaders have been saying in recent months. The report says Iran has doubled the number of centrifuges it could use to make the core of nuclear warheads at its underground bunker at Fordow. It has also effectively shut down the IAEA investigation of their work at Parchin, where the Islamist regime has been conducting work on nuclear weapons development.

Fordow is the “breakout” facility where it can convert any civilian nuclear activity into military applications safe from air attack. As even the New York Times admits today, far from the Obama administration’s strategy of using diplomacy and sanctions slowing down Iran’s progress, “if anything, the program is speeding up.” It goes on to point out:

But the agency’s report has also put Israel in a corner, documenting that Iran is close to crossing what Israel has long said is its red line: the capability to produce nuclear weapons in a location invulnerable to Israeli attack.

The Times is right about that. Being proven right about the failure of Obama’s policy is cold comfort for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu since the administration refuses to recognize the failure, either publicly or privately. The Times of Israel reports that a meeting last week between Netanyahu and U.S. Ambassador Dan Shapiro resulted in hostile exchanges with the diplomat “breaking protocol” and angrily scolding the prime minister for pushing too hard for U.S. action.

U.S.-Israel Strategic Cooperation is Changing

JINSA: The Sentry
15 December '10

Washington’s Focus on Defensive Posture Limits Israeli Flexibility

Paper delivered by Shoshana Bryen, Senior Director for Security Policy, at the Jewish Federation General Assembly in New Orleans, Louisiana, November 8, 2010.

Rep. Eric Cantor, slated to be Majority Leader in the next Congress, said before the 2010 mid-term election, “If we regain the majority, we will use our larger platform to make the case that a strong Israel is firmly in the strategic and moral interests of the United States.” He echoed the view from the Hill of both Democrats and Republicans.

Although I personally love to think of the U.S.-Israel security relationship as a function of shared democratic values and commitment to individual civil liberties and the rule of law (and have been writing about it at JINSA since 1979), that is not where it resides in American security planning. The nature and depth of the relationship depends on how the principals define the threats facing their respective nations.

Shared values and democratic systems count for a lot in the political world – and they make friends for the military people involved – but national security interests can evolve without them. Look at Saudi Arabia. No one would mistake the Saudis for people who share our values – even after their helpful intelligence on al Qaeda package bombs.

When there is a common threat or a common interest, the relationship has more of the characteristic of an alliance. When the definition of either country’s essential interest changes, the relationship becomes something else, generally something less than an alliance.

(Read full "U.S.-Israel Strategic Cooperation is Changing")

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.
.