What happened to our forces? - by Amos Regev

...The IDF is grandmothers and grandfathers, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters. It's us, it's all of us, it's "our forces." But recently, something happened there, within our forces' upper command echelon. A kind of "group think" effect that yielded a new filter, through which they now view reality. It involves a communal pat on the back and a deep-seated belief that they, and only they, hold the philosopher's stone of truth and justice, and, above all, values. But that is entirely not the case. A sense of proportion and good judgement are sorely lacking there.

Amos Regev..
Israel Hayom..
29 May '16..
Link: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=16255..

What happened to our forces?

"Our forces" is what we call IDF soldiers and commanders. And that is precisely what we should call them, because ever since the establishment of the state, our army has been the key force that protects Israel, and there is really nothing quite like it. Ever since 1948 and the founding generation, through all the wars Israel has fought and the struggle to defend our borders, we have relied upon a military comprising soldiers in compulsory service and reservists. The IDF is grandmothers and grandfathers, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters. It's us, it's all of us, it's "our forces."

But recently, something happened there, within our forces' upper command echelon. A kind of "group think" effect that yielded a new filter, through which they now view reality. It involves a communal pat on the back and a deep-seated belief that they, and only they, hold the philosopher's stone of truth and justice, and, above all, values. But that is entirely not the case. A sense of proportion and good judgement are sorely lacking there.

About a month ago, the U.S. military published an inquiry into a failed military operation in Afghanistan. In October 2015, a special airplane -- a Hercules gunship that had been customized for anti-terror missions -- attacked a hospital operated by Doctors Without Borders in Kunduz. The ground forces were convinced that the hospital was actually a Taliban base. The airstrike was launched and 42 civilians were killed: women, children and the elderly.

Exactly 12 minutes into the strike, Doctors Without Borders contacted the American Special Forces commander to alert him of the mistake, but the airstrike continued for another 30 to 50 minutes, by various accounts, after the call was received.

Following a long investigation, the report was published. The strike does not constitute a war crime, it determined. Not murder, not manslaughter, not negligence. It was an operational mistake: The intended target was another building.

The target was misidentified; the protocol was wrong; there was a malfunction in the plane's control system; there was a communications error. Were 42 civilians killed? Were there urgent appeals in real-time to hold fire? Oh well. It was an accident.

No one in the U.S. military will face court-martial, but 16 people were reprimanded. Some will be dismissed from their posts. Disciplinary action was taken. End of story.

So what, the American military isn't "moral"? Of course it's moral. The "Counterinsurgency Field Manual," the official guide for the Army and the Marines, says: "American military values obligate Soldiers and Marines to accomplish their missions while taking measures to limit the destruction caused during military operations, particularly in terms of collateral harm to noncombatants. ... Combatants are not required to take so much risk that they fail in their mission or forfeit their lives."

And after all that, the matter ended -- with a few people being reprimanded.

And here? The case of Elor Azaria, the IDF soldier who shot an incapacitated terrorist in Hebron in March, has become a test case in the eyes of senior officers, a watershed event, a major battle for the values of purity of arms, and what's worse -- an engine of accusations against Israeli society as a whole.

No need to sugarcoat or whitewash

Our estranged generals - by Caroline Glick

...But whatever the cause of their behavior, the fact is that behavior has alienated them from Israeli society. In treating Palestinian terrorists with more respect than it accords its own soldiers, the IDF General Staff is earning the public’s fury. And in their contemptuous dismissal of the public’s loss of trust, our generals – including Ya’alon – are demonstrating that they have become strangers to their own society. This of course is a calamity. The IDF lost the public’s trust at Purim. Let us hope that at Passover, our generals will leave their bubble and begin repairing the damage they caused. They are not in Europe. They are here. And they need to be with us.

Caroline Glick..
Column One/JPost..
21 April '16..

It's been a long time in coming, but it finally happened.

The IDF General Staff has lost the public trust.

This is terrible for the General Staff. But it is more terrible for the country, because the public is right not to trust our military leaders. They have earned our distrust fair and square.

The final straw came in less than optimal circumstances.

But such is life. Things are never cut and dry. On Purim, Sgt. Elor Azaria killed a terrorist in Hebron as he lay on the ground, shot, following his attempted murder of one of Azaria’s comrades.

Still today, we don’t know whether Azaria acted properly or improperly. He claims that he believed the terrorist had a bomb beneath the heavy jacket he was wearing in the middle of a heat wave.

Azaria claims that he shot him because he feared that the terrorist – who was moving – was trying to detonate the bomb. This view was shared by emergency personnel at the scene caring for the wounded soldier.

But even before he had a chance to tell his story, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Eisenkot and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon had already declared Azaria guilty of murder. Based on an initial field investigation and a snuff film produced by the European-funded anti-Israel group B’Tselem, Eisenkot and Ya’alon excoriated Azaria and pronounced the soldier, who was decorated for his service just last year, a rotten apple.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially joined them in their condemnations. But when he realized that the public wasn’t buying it and that the evidence was far from cut and dry, to his credit, Netanyahu walked back his remarks.

Ya’alon and Eisenkot, in contrast, have refused to let the uncertainty of the situation affect them.

Their continued assaults on the soldier have compounded the damage. Their stubborn refusal to give Azaria the benefit of the doubt and admit that he may well have comported himself properly indicates that they have no idea how their statements are being viewed by the public, or worse, they may not care. They may simply be playing for another audience.

And here lies the beginning of the real problem.

For the public – including the five thousand citizens who came to the support rally for Azaria at Rabin Square on Tuesday – the critical moment was when the film of Azaria being led away from the scene in handcuffs was broadcast on the evening news. That image, of a combat soldier who killed a terrorist being treated like a criminal, was the breaking point for the public. Whether he was guilty or innocent was beside the point. The point was that his commanders – beginning with the defense minister and the chief of General Staff – were treating him like a criminal instead of a combat soldier on the front lines defending our country from an enemy that seeks our destruction.

This image, combined with Ya’alon’s and Eisenkot’s increasingly shrill and caustic condemnations of Azaria, was a breach of the social contract between the IDF and the public. That social contract says that we serve in the IDF. We send our children to serve in the IDF. And the IDF values us and values our sons and daughters as its own.

The right of the Jewish people to live in their land

The State of Israel's existence is based on more than just military force and diplomatic realism. Most of all, it is rooted in the right of the Jewish people to live in this land with which we are so bonded.

Nadav Shragai..
Israel Hayom..
24 January '16..

The two homes in Hebron which Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon ordered the evacuation of on Friday were purchased from their previous owners for the full price. And this is how it should be in the city of our forefathers. Abraham set the precedent when bought the Cave of the Patriarchs and the surrounding field from Ephron the Hittite for 400 shekels of silver.

The two homes in question are located very close to the Cave of the Patriarchs and the legal justification for their evacuation was just an excuse. The homes are surrounded by hundreds of illegally built Arab homes that the Israeli justice system has taken no steps against.

So the two homes were not evacuated because of Israeli law. They were evacuated for the very same reason Ya'alon and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have limited construction in the Judea and Samaria settlement blocs and Jerusalem in recent years -- heavy pressure from the U.S. and Europe.

Deep in his heart, Ya'alon very much supports the expansion of Jewish settlement in Hebron. He knows well that if the settlers had acted in accordance with protocol and requested the proper permits from him and Netanyahu, their chances of being allowed to inhabit the homes would have been close to zero. Ya'alon himself, in previous military roles, knew how to turn a blind eye to unauthorized settlement activities and then later approve them ex post facto.

So while the evacuation of the homes may be a diplomatic-related matter, it represents a huge missed opportunity. We are in the midst of a wave of Palestinian terrorism during which many attackers have come from Hebron. The evacuation broadcast an image of Israeli weakness and it contradicted the long-held Zionist doctrine of building, not retreating -- defiantly constructing new homes, neighborhoods and communities in the face of terrorism, murder and hatred.

Dear Defense Minister: I respectfully – but firmly – disagree by Martin Sherman

Moshe Ya’alon is a man of intellect, integrity and courage. As such, I hope he will address the troubling questions this column raises.

Martin Sherman..
Into the Fray/JPost..
03 December '15..

A brief prologue: I would consider myself remiss if, before broaching the topic of this week’s column, I did not pause to pay tribute to my friend Maurice Ostroff, who, sadly, passed away this week at the age of 90. His tireless and articulate efforts in defense of Israel (including his erudite Jerusalem Post blog) will be sorely missed, and his passing will leave the public discourse on Israel, and its international standing, decidedly diminished.

How do you manage in these conditions to create a situation in which those not involved in terror activities can continue with their lives? How can you not undermine the routine of life, while providing an effective response to the threat that emerges from individual attackers – knives, vehicle rammings, shootings? It is not organized; there is no organization, but it comes directly out of the civilian population. How can you, nevertheless, allow a sizable Arab civilian population in Judea and Samaria to live its life if it is not involved in terror activities?

…In this war which is predominantly a war of wills, of two societies with conflicting wills, a war in which endurance is more important than firepower, [the question is] which society will prevail?

– Defense Minister Moshe (Bogie) Ya’alon, Israel Democracy Institute, November 25

This is not an easy column for me to write.

Although I cannot claim to be a “bosom buddy” of Defense Minister Ya’alon, I have, over the last decade, maintained an amiable relationship with him, and spent a considerable number of hours discussing – more often than not in a like-minded manner – various issues on the national agenda.

Recently, however, I find myself increasingly at odds with several of his public pronouncements, and not infrequently at a loss to fathom the political rationale underlying the course they are intended to chart.

Despite my personal bias

I must confess to having a strong personal bias in favor of Ya’alon. In many ways, he is the epitome of an officer and a gentleman, a far more thoughtful politician than one normally encounters in the Israeli political system.

Indeed, I do not think I am being overly naïve in believing he is motivated more by his sincere perception of the national interest than of any narrow personal gain.

However, despite my esteem for the man and his impressive accomplishments, the issues at hand are so fateful that I feel compelled to overcome my personal reluctance to engage him critically in public, and take him to task for what I see as grave misperception of reality and of the policy required to contend with it.

It was a headline, “Ya’alon: We must let West Bank Arabs live as normal lives as possible” in last Thursday’s Jerusalem Post that provided the impetus for this column.

The report, by the Post’s Jeremy Sharon, referred to an address Ya’alon gave at the inauguration of a new program at the Israel Democracy Institute on “National Security and Democracy” in memory of the late IDF chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Amnon Lipkin-Shahak.

While not a verbatim quote of what Ya’alon actually said, the headline did encapsulate the substance of an important portion of his talk, which comprises the point of departure of the ensuing critique.

Is Hamas Deterred or Patient?

...Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon argues that the fact that Hamas isn’t shooting today – and in fact arrests the shooters – is proof that Hamas is deterred. But deterred from what? Deterred from openly preparing to attack Israel? No. Hamas says that it will pick the time and place to attack the Jewish State. Maybe the time of their choosing simply hasn’t yet come.

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
28 May '15





Here are the facts.

You be the judge.

1. Since the end of the war last summer, Hamas has devoted its resources – both financial and physical – on preparing to attack the Jewish State.

2. These resources include building material used for building tunnels and bunkers instead of repairing homes and other structures for the benefit of the Gazan civilian population. This at a time that rival groups in Gaza exploit public dissatisfaction and frustration to draw support away from Hamas.

3. These preparations include a massive tunneling operation both up to (and possibly into) Israel as well as inside the Gaza Strip along with many strategically located bunkers, observation and command and control posts. There is also a huge network if rocket launching positions configured to minimize detection. In addition to a very open rocket development and production operation and active UAV program, Hamas is also pouring resources into openly training its ever growing army for the day Hamas participates in the invasion of Israel. And this is just what we see.

More Than Something Is Rotten at Foggy Bottom

...The Obama administration’s public temper tantrums are at this point a regular feature of the president’s second term. That they’re directed at allies is becoming commonplace but still disturbing. That the State Department seems to prioritize retribution against Israel over holding those who kill American citizens accountable unfortunately encapsulates American diplomacy in the age of Obama and Kerry

Seth Mandel..
Commentary Magazine..
24 October '14..

After the Wall Street Journal broke the news that President Obama reined in the U.S.-Israel military partnership while Israel was at war, it could not be plausibly denied that Obama has sought to downgrade the special relationship. But the story was alarming not only because of the lengths Obama was willing to go to tie Israel’s hands but also because it showed the president was chipping away at the rest of the U.S. government’s ability to pick up the slack when Obama tried to hamper Israel’s ability to defend itself.

That has always been the silver lining, and it’s always annoyed much of the American left: other American governmental institutions, such as Congress and the military, are consistently pro-Israel and can thus keep the relationship strong when a president tries to weaken it. And it’s also why it should be of great concern now that another American governmental institution that is usually far less pro-Israel is becoming, under Secretary of State John Kerry, even more antagonistic toward Jerusalem than usual: the U.S. State Department.

Much has been made about the unimaginably incompetent and incoherent management of Foggy Bottom’s communications under spokeswomen Marie Harf and Jen Psaki. But it’s too easy–and not totally accurate–to dismiss Harf and Psaki as misplaced campaign attack hacks. They are out of place at State, but they are there for a reason. And the culture of the diplomatic corps more broadly also resembles the same spiteful ignorance routinely displayed by the president and his secretary of state. The latest example is the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem’s memo to employees referring to Wednesday’s terror attack, in which a Palestinian murdered a Jewish baby, as a “traffic incident.”

After that terror attack, Harf had initially told both sides to exercise restraint. At yesterday’s briefing, Jen Psaki was asked about one of the major sources of gasoline being poured on this fire: the incitement to violence coming from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Here is the exchange:

QUESTION: I’m not making any relation, but there’s been some concern over the last week or two about comments by President Abbas that believe to have incurred incitement. And are you concerned about that? You haven’t really spoken out about that. Do you in any way feel that this is inciting Palestinians to take actions into their own hands?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Elise, one, I mean, we obviously believe that the act last night warrants condemnation evidence (sic) by the statement we released last night. I’m not going to characterize the comments made or not made by President – Prime Minister Netanyahu or the response from President Abbas.

QUESTION: Well, if you haven’t really received a condemnation from President Abbas, then don’t you think you should offer one?

MS. PSAKI: I think our view of it is clear by – evidenced by our statement last night. I would point you to him on any comments that they would like to make.

QUESTION: But what about his comments, like, over the past – I mean, there has just been several comments that people have remarked about that seem to be incurring incitement. Is that not concerning?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think that’s – as you know, President Abbas has renounced violence and consistently sought a diplomatic and peaceful solution that allows for two states. I don’t have any other analysis for you to offer.

That’s right, all Psaki would say is that Abbas “has renounced violence and consistently sought a diplomatic and peaceful solution”–an obviously false statement–along with the strident insistence that she doesn’t “have any other analysis for you to offer.”

Let Hamas maintain its monopoly on hysteria

...Hamas' strategy rests on rocket weapons and tunnels. They have both failed and been blocked. Hamas also plotted terrorist attacks from the sea and failed. The results it has obtained are comparatively pathetic, and its losses very heavy. Anyone who doubts that is welcome to watch the broadcasts of the hostile television networks: BBC, CNN, and the Palestinian and Hamas-run stations.

Dror Eydar..
Israel Hayom..
25 August '14..

Who said there is no plan? From the start the plan has been to ensure long-term quiet, based on weakening Hamas. You cannot tack on goals that never existed -- toppling Hamas or renewing the diplomatic process -- and then complain that they were not met.

Israel does not need to involve itself in the question of who should control Gaza. If Hamas wants to continue ruling, it must accept Israel's demands. For now, Gaza is being pummeled and senior Hamas leaders are being killed. Hamas itself is helping demilitarize the Strip by using up its supply of bombs. Despite the nonsense being tossed about, Hamas does not have the initiative; what it has is the choice of whether to continue taking a beating or accede to Israel's demands.

The Europeans, the Americans, and some on the Left want to bring down the Hamas regime -- not out of hate for Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashaal, but rather out of love for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and a desire to restart negotiations. Abbas, too, wants to build himself up on the ruins of Hamas. Its desire notwithstanding, it is not a bad thing that Hamas remains weak in Gaza. It would be a living gravestone over the burial of the idea of a Palestinian state within spitting distance of the heart of Israel.

Big heroes have called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, and IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz "cowards." Unbelievable. The geniuses also said that "we wrecked the Israeli deterrence." Where did this come from? Do they have enough perspective to make an evaluation like that? Certainly not. So what is this drivel? Dubbing the Israeli leadership "cowardly" is actually a shot in the arm for Hamas.

On Thursday, asked about Israeli policy, Israel Prize laureate Professor Yehezkel Dror responded more or less that because he wasn't familiar with the intelligence, military, international and legal reports, he could not express a serious opinion that would not be considered rubbish.

Israel has fronts besides the southern one, and there, too, our enemies are waiting. Inside Israel, as well. And there is the complex international system: the U.N., Europe, and America, which is why Israel agreed to the multiple cease-fires. Israeli society, with all its different opinions, is also a factor that must be considered. Social unity and steadfastness are strategic assets.

Amidror revelation raises questions about basis for quiet for quiet policy

...Suffice it to say that If National Security Advisor Amidror didn't know about the long range rockets that PM Netanyahu, DM Yaalon and pretty much everyone else in a decision making position didn't know. This is not a minor matter.

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
16 July '14..

Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror served as the National Security Advisor of Israel from May 2011 until November 2013.

As National Security Advisor Amidror was privy to intelligence information from literally all Israeli intelligence agencies and services.

On Chanel 2 TV News this evening, Yaakov Amidror remarked that he was surprised that there were rockets in the Gaza Strip that could reach beyond Tel Aviv.

It turns out that there are rockets in the Gaza Strip that can almost reach our northern border!

And we are not talking about just one rocket.

Salvos of such long range rockets have been launched from the Gaza Strip.

Some are more equal than others by Sarah Honig

...It’s the distinct duty of Israeli leaders to make sure that the most vital existential interests of this country, as they identify them, aren’t compromised. Israelis too are entitled to hold views and to express them.

Sarah Honig..
Another Tack..
28 March '14..

Speaking the truth can be a dangerous undertaking. It can expose the speaker to all sort of chastisement. This isn’t only so in any given country’s domestic affairs but very much so in relations between states.

Ours, after all, is a globalized reality. This fact can induce and intensify inordinate hubris in some leaders with pretensions to hold sway over more than their own specified domain. White House occupant and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barak Obama, for instance, often conducts himself as if the American electorate and the Nobel committee had put him in charge of the whole earth.

Had Obama been an unqualified success, his conceit may be suffered but his isn’t and he doesn’t like to hear that he isn’t.

Despite his resplendent liberal credentials, Obama’s concept of liberty is a tad constricted. Everyone – everywhere on the face of this planet and beyond – is perfectly free to go into raptures over him but it’s a whole different opera when not-so-flattering opinions are sounded.

Obama, his appointed sidekicks and salaried mouthpieces resent criticism. Plain and simple.

Quite clearly, the US president and secretary of state don’t subscribe to George Orwell’s ever-relevant observation that “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

*Therefore, woe to the Quixotic sorts – both on America’s home turf and abroad – who insist on telling Obama and crew precisely what they’re loath to hear. Woe all the more to the recidivists who persist in upsetting the Obama administration’s omniscient ones.

Very obviously Israel’s defense minister Moshe Ya’alon is among the least stomached recidivists, even if he speaks his mind at closed meetings or in private conversations.

Ya’alon must come to grips with the fact that freedom of speech isn’t universally countenanced in our Obamaesque existence. Someone can be counted upon to leak or record uncomplimentary evaluations of the dear leader and then woe to him who dared tell it like he sees it.

The only way to avoid Obama’s self-righteous censure is to obsequiously shut up. Not to do so is imprudent in the extreme.

Nonetheless, Ya’alon keeps breaching the gag order that has been imposed on Israeli statesmen by Obama’s eminently ultra-liberal administration. Its honchos detest unfavorable analyses, which amounts to not wanting them voiced – not even behind closed doors.

The who and probable why of attempts to bring down Ya’alon

...Indeed, he behaved as a leader ought to. When the leader in an open society is considering a significant shift in national policies, it is reasonable for him to share his thinking with policy elites, whether in academia or the media, to prepare the ground and gauge their responses. Doing so in private enables leaders to consider major shifts away from the spotlight...He spoke off the record to prevent a diplomatic embarrassment for himself and the country. They leaked his remarks in order to embarrass him and initiate a diplomatic crisis.

Caroline Glick..
Our World/JPost..
24 March '14..

If this is a coincidence, it is an extraordinary one. Twice in less than two months, remarks that Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon made in closed forums about key issues on Israel’s national security agenda were leaked to the media. In both cases, the media used the leaked remarks to foment a crisis in relations between Israel and the Obama administration.

In both cases, the Obama administration has used the opportunities created by the Israeli media to bash Ya’alon and pressure Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to fire him.

In January, Yediot Aharonot leaked Ya’alon’s private remarks about US Secretary of State John Kerry’s irrational focus on the mordant peace process between Israel and the Palestinians at a time when there is both relative peace in Israel, and Israel’s neighbors are undergoing political upheavals and civil war. Together with the other two musketeers of Israel’s far-left media – Haaretz and Channel 2, Yediot used the story to provoke a fight between the Netanyahu government and the Obama administration. Acting on cue, the White House and State Department demanded that Ya’alon apologize for remarks that were made in private. Ya’alon sufficed with a terse statement that he was sorry if anyone took offense from his private remarks.

And now, two months later, Ya’alon’s remarks have been leaked again.

Last week Ya’alon spoke at a forum at Tel Aviv University that was closed to the media. There he bemoaned the Obama administration’s abandonment of the US’s traditional role as the world’s policeman and considered its significance for Israel. With regard to Iran’s nuclear program, Ya’alon said that the time had come for Israel to recognize that the US has not met its expectations and taken the lead to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. As a consequence, “We [Israelis] have to look out for ourselves.”

Haaretz published Ya’alon’s leaked remarks and then, with its partners, Yediot and Channel 2, set about fomenting a crisis in relations with the US. As it did in January, last week the Obama administration jumped at the opportunity. State Department spokeswoman Jan Psaki stopped just short of demanding Ya’alon’s resignation.

What is going on here? Obama and Kerry say far worse things about Israel’s leaders as a matter of course than Ya’alon said about either of them. And nothing Ya’alon said was wrong. Nothing that he said was unique. Similar statements are being heard from spurned US allies around the region and the world. Not only were Ya’alon’s statements reasonable, the vast majority of Israelis share his sentiments both on the untrustworthiness of US security guarantees and on the absence of prospects for peace with the PLO.

So why leak his remarks and present them as unforgivable faux pas?

Funny thing is, Ya'alon's comments do perfectly reflect the State Dept policies

...Ya'alon is one of the most significant and successful professionals that has risen in the field of security. His professional analysis on security issues field have been proven to be free of an agenda, and therefore not slanted. That is why he has accurately predicted events and warned against them. However, the State Department seems to view Ya'alon as an obstacle to forming the framework peace agreement.

Rav/Colonel (res.) Eliezer Schonwald
Israel Hayom..
23 March '14..

There are those in Israel who stress out over the hysterical, enraged comments made by the U.S. State Department in response to Defense Minister Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon's remarks. But precisely the outrage tells me that something else is going on and that this isn't about being offended but a strategic, calculated response.

Whoever looks at Ya'alon's remarks on U.S. policy in the Middle East and particularly in Iran, does not understand what exactly upset the State Department and what so angered the Americans they demanded an explicit apology from the defense minister. After all, Ya'alon's comments perfectly reflect the State Department's policies, one by one.

If people in the State Department think there's a problem, the problem is not what Ya'alon said but with whoever formed the negligent, out-of-touch foreign policy. It seems the U.S. State Department truly believes their competent, calculated foreign policy succeeded in preventing the chaos in Egypt in recent years, succeeded in thwarting the ongoing slaughter in Syria, stopped Iran's nuclear arms race, and deterred Russia from annexing the Crimean peninsula. According to the Americans, only Ya'alon is unaware of their great success and sees it as a failure.

Even if the State Department (whether under the current or previous administrations) wanted to bring peace and prosperity in the spirit of the American democratic vision -- they prove, time and again, that they cannot form policies or lead global reforms. Yet this does diminish the department's confidence in its abilities. It is confidant it has the key to solving the Israeli-Arab conflict. Here and now. Even if that means one side is forced to conform to their plans (its no secret that usually that means Israel). After all, these are the rules of the game. Under the pretense of friendship and cooperation, Israel is expected to agree to America's demands.

True Believers, Reality and Israeli Defense Minister Ya'alon

...Livni and Gal-on’s condemnation is not only selective, but also instructive. Gal-on criticized Ya'alon for “not believing in peace,” and Livni claimed that “our responsibility is to change reality.” Galon and Livni did not address the merit (or lack thereof) of Ya'alon’s assessment. They castigated him for lacking “belief” in peace and for facing reality rather than “changing” it.

Dr. Emmanuel Navon..
I24 News..
19 March '14..

Some Israeli politicians have a selective and instructive way of reacting to the latest public declarations on the tortuous negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA).

On March 6, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas declared that any deal with Israel would be submitted to a referendum among all Palestinians around the world, explaining that he would not waive the “right” of 5 million Palestinians to become citizens of Israel. Abbas made it clear that he only has a right to waive his own “right of return,” (to Israel) but certainly not that of his children and grandchildren, and that Palestinian “refugees” (i.e. the descendants of the actual refugees of 1948) will be entitled to financial reparation on top of their “right” to become Israeli citizens.

As for the referendum among the Palestinians “from Canada to Japan,” Abbas did not get into the details of the logistics that such an unprecedented worldwide consultation would entail. Besides logistics, however, Abbas’ suggested referendum begs disbelief. He does not have any say on the Gaza Strip, which is controlled by Hamas. Since being elected PA Chairman in 2005, Abbas has refused to hold new elections. One may wonder why a man who has systematically ignored the will of his constituents for the past nine years is suddenly eager to hear their opinion. And since Abbas just “promised” 5 million Palestinians that they will be entitled both to become Israeli citizens and to receive financial compensation, why should they approve, in a hypothetical referendum, a deal that will obviously not include such fantasies?

If Abbas actually believes what he says, then he is obviously not a man with whom Israel can make peace. If he is just being provocative and obnoxious, then he is not trustworthy. So Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon expressed a perfectly reasonable opinion when he declared on March 15 that Abbas is no partner for a genuine peace deal.

Yet chief negotiator Tzipi Livni and Member of Knesset Zehava Gal-on (who chairs the left-wing “Meretz” party) expressed outrage at Ya'alon for drawing conclusions from Abbas’ statements, but not at Abbas for making those statements in the first place. Nor did Livni and Gal-on have anything to say about the fact that, on March 12, senior PA official Abbas Zaki declared on Palestinian television: “Allah will gather the Israelis so that we can kill them.”

Livni and Gal-on’s condemnation is not only selective, but also instructive. Gal-on criticized Ya'alon for “not believing in peace,” and Livni claimed that “our responsibility is to change reality.” Galon and Livni did not address the merit (or lack thereof) of Ya'alon’s assessment. They castigated him for lacking “belief” in peace and for facing reality rather than “changing” it.

(Video) One-minute and 7 seconds of lucidity, requiring no clarification

..."Abbas is a partner who takes, not a partner who gives. He is not a partner for a permanent peace agreement that includes recognition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people. He just takes back prisoners.

LOTL..
17 March '14..
h/t Batya Medad




From Israel Hayom 16 March '14, DM Ya'alon keeps it short and sweet.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is not a partner for a permanent peace agreement, Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon (Likud) said in a Channel 2 interview on Saturday, just days before Abbas is set to meet with U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House. "Unfortunately, an agreement will not happen in my generation," Ya'alon said.

Click here or picture for interview

 (Read full article)

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. Check-it out!  .
.

U.S. Sec. of State Kerry's "messianic" squabble with Israel

If Kerry is "obsessed" with the need for a solution he might start with the Palestinian obsession of refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, not to mention their relentless promotion of violence

Michael Curtis..
The Commentator..
18 January '14..

One of the more delightful witticisms of Oscar Wilde is, "A friend is someone who stabs you in the front." No one can say that Moshe Yaalon, Israeli Minister of Defense since March 2013, lacks courage to deliver frontally his version of the truth about the Arab-Israeli peace negotiations that Secretary of State John Kerry and the Obama administration have been trying to orchestrate.

One can appreciate that Yaalon, who served 37 years in the Israel Defense Forces and became head of military intelligence and chief of staff before entering politics, is not the most skillful diplomat among prominent figures in Israel.

His quoted remarks in an off-the-cuff briefing to the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth that Kerry "was acting out an incomprehensible obsession and a messianic feeling" because of his efforts to frame a peace agreement during his ten trips to Israel, though frank, lacked diplomatic tact.

Yaalon was immediately reprimanded by State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki who remarked that the comments, "if accurate, are offensive and inappropriate, especially given all that the United States is doing to support Israel's security needs."

For her, questioning Kerry's motives and distorting his proposals "is not something we would expect from the defense minister of a close ally."

First, about the reprimand by someone who herself has made inappropriate remarks. It was reassuring that Psaki spoke of Israel as a "close ally," but her statement is not the first time she has spoken strongly about critics of Obama administration policy.

In October 2010, Psaki, then deputy communications director in the White House, used harsh language in criticizing a report by Neil M. Barofsky, well-known federal prosecutor, and a Democrat who had been appointed in 2008 by President George W. Bush to be Special Inspector General for the Asset Relief Program (Sigtarp).

Barofsky's executive summary in the report had cited several deficiencies and shortcomings in the federal program. In particular, it stated that the White House bailout of $700 billion for Wall Street lacked oversight and transparency.

Psaki, speaking for the White House, used intemperate language about these objective but critical comments by Barofsky: "Some people don't like movies with happy endings ...Sistarp sought to generate a false controversy ...and grab a few, cheap headlines."

Unlike Yaalon who apologized, or was obliged to apologize for his criticism of Kerry, Psaki never apologized for her own cheap remarks about Barofsky.

What is important is not the discourtesy by Psaki, but the implied substance of the comment by Yaalon, and his evaluation of the possibility of peace with the Palestinians.

It is important to view the present differences between Israel and the U.S. as substantive, not personal in nature. While agreeing that Israel and the United States had common objectives and interests, and were allies, Yaalon was concerned about the naïve if sincere persistence of Kerry after ten visits to Israel and five months of fruitless negotiation.

In bringing this failure to the forefront, Yaalon's remark cannot be considered "unhelpful" as some of his political opponents suggested. It is a refutation of the absurd regular Arab position that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to the Middle East, and indeed to the world.

Martin Indyk, a Very Snappy Dresser vs. Moshe Ya’alon

...Indyk’s effort is part of a co-ordinated campaign to sideline Israel’s defense minister, by a peace processor whose past policy prescriptions for Israel’s security have been consistently wrong, but who–one must hasten to add–is a very snappy dresser.

Rick Richman..
Commentary Magazine..
17 January '14..

Israeli defense minister Moshe Ya’alon violated the first rule of diplomacy–always compliment the emperor on his wardrobe, and limit your comments to concerns about his well-intentioned but possibly counterproductive wardrobe policy. But as Seth Mandel noted, Ya’alon is not alone in his concerns, and the private expression of them has had no effect on the Obama administration–other than to lead it to attack Ya’alon. Israeli columnist Ron Ben-Yishai writes that Ya’alon’s comments were a long time coming:

Ya’alon is mainly against the security aspect [of the framework agreement], and [Kerry and his team] are presenting him as the chief party pooper in briefings they are giving politicians and former senior Israeli military officials. Kerry’s personal emissary, former Ambassador Martin Indyk, has not been shy about his opinion on Ya’alon either, and this has all reached the 14th floor at the Defense Ministry building. Ya’alon didn’t like the defamation and the brawl broke out after bubbling for quite a long time in utmost discretion.

In 2009, Martin Indyk wrote that Israel’s insistence that the Palestinians “allow Israel the means to defend itself” sounded “like a new precondition”–a “well-practiced Netanyahu negotiating tactic.” In 2010, Indyk took to the New York Times op-ed page to castigate Israel for approving Jewish housing in a longstanding Jewish area of the capital of the Jewish state. He considered it a “strategic setback” that required reversal as “the litmus test of Netanyahu’s commitment to the common cause of curbing Iran’s nuclear enthusiasm.” In the same op-ed, he concluded that “nothing could better help Obama to isolate Iran than for Netanyahu to offer to cede the Golan” to Syria. Later, Indyk urged Israel to jump out a window for peace.

Indyk’s self-defenestration suggestion was contained in another 2010 New York Times op-ed, entitled “For Once, Hope in the Middle East,” where Indyk also wrote that:

Security arrangements were all but settled in 2000 at Camp David before the talks collapsed. The increased threat of rocket attacks since then, among other developments, require the two sides to agree on stricter border controls and a robust third-party force in the Jordan Valley.

In other words, he belatedly conceded that the “all but settled” security arrangements of 2000 would not have been effective against the “increased threat of rocket attacks” and the “other developments” that occurred thereafter, and he agreed that something more was necessary. So he revised his position to endorse a “robust” international force in the Jordan Valley.

What to Call a Man Whose Belief is Undeterred by the Facts

...So what exactly does it mean that Palestinians “support a two-state solution”? The same thing it has always meant, as an unusually honest 2011 poll revealed: not two states living side by side in peace and security, but two states as a stepping-stone to Israel’s ultimate eradication. That’s why they insist on resettling millions of Palestinians in Israel; that’s why they reject any Jewish connection to Jerusalem; and that’s why they can’t recognize Israel as “the state of the Jewish people.” And as long as that remains true, Kerry’s belief in “the prospects for peace” really is “messianic”–however unwise it was of Moshe Ya’alon to say so.

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary Magazine..
16 January '14..

After the Israeli defense minister’s undiplomatic skepticism about the peace process prompted a diplomatic flap earlier this week, Secretary of State John Kerry announced yesterday that he is “undeterred,” explaining, “I believe strongly in the prospects for peace.” In that, Kerry isn’t alone: An entire industry has arisen around the belief that Israeli-Palestinian peace is imminently attainable, and it is consistently “undeterred” by the facts. For a classic example, consider the joint Israeli-Palestinian poll released in late December under the unequivocal headline, “The majority of Israelis (63%) and of Palestinians (53%) support the two states solution.”

That sounds very promising, until you read the fine print. And then it turns out that most Palestinians don’t support the two-state solution at all–or at least, not the one whose terms “everyone knows.” In fact, when presented with the elements of that “everyone knows” package, defined by the researchers as based on the Clinton parameters and the Geneva Initiative, 53 percent of Palestinians opposed it, while only 46 percent supported it.

Moreover, several specific clauses were rejected by both Palestinians and Israelis, though Israelis supported the overall package by 54 percent to 37 percent.

For instance, Palestinians opposed the “everyone knows” plan for dividing Jerusalem (Israel retains Jewish neighborhoods, including the Old City’s Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall, while Palestinians get Palestinian neighborhoods, including the rest of the Old City and the Temple Mount) by a whopping 68 percent to 32 percent. That’s consistent with their longstanding refusal to recognize any Jewish connection whatsoever to Jerusalem. But Israelis also rejected it overwhelmingly, 56 percent to 37 percent, consistent with their longstanding opposition to ceding Judaism’s holy site, the Temple Mount. The shared opposition also reflects both sides’ understanding of the proposal’s sheer impracticality (as I explained here).

By an even larger majority, 71 percent to 28 percent, Palestinians opposed the idea of a demilitarized Palestinian state (Israelis, unsurprisingly, supported it). Yet this has long been recognized by international mediators as an essential security element of any deal.

On refugees, the researchers managed to craft a proposal that both parties rejected. Palestinians opposed it by a relatively narrow margin, 52 percent to 46 percent, which initially surprised me: Most polls show much stronger Palestinian opposition to abandoning their dream of eliminating the Jewish state by resettling millions of Palestinians there. But after reading the fine print, I understood why: On this issue, the researchers ditched the Clinton parameters in favor of the Geneva Initiative, which no Israeli government ever has accepted or will accept.

Capable of Offending Kerry's Peace Process Standards? Depends On Who You Are.

...It is interesting to see how one comment from an Israeli minister has managed to strain relations between the U.S. Administration and Israel, while fiery rhetoric and street demonstrations against Kerry and Obama in the Palestinian territories and Arab capitals are completely ignored by Washington. If Kerry really cares about the peace process, he also needs to ask the Palestinian Authority and Arab governments to lower the tone and stop inciting against him and the U.S. Unless, of course, those statements and protests do not offend him.

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
16 January '14..

The U.S. Administration has reacted quickly and strongly to statements attributed to Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon. Ya'alon was quoted by the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronot as describing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as "messianic and obsessive."

In response, the U.S. condemned Ya'alon's comments as "offensive and inappropriate."

Israel's Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon greets U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Israel, May 2013. (Image source: U.S. State Department)
But while the U.S. Administration has been quick in issuing a response to the Israeli minister's statements, it continues to ignore remarks and demonstrations against Kerry made by Palestinians and other Arabs.

Palestinian officials representing various organizations, including the Palestinian Authority, have been denouncing Kerry almost on a daily basis over the past few weeks. But these condemnations do not seem to bother the State Department.

Among the officials who have been extremely critical of Kerry's role in the current Israeli-Palestinian peace talks is Yasser Abed Rabbo, the PLO's Secretary-General and one of the closest advisors to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Just last month, Abed Rabbo launched a scathing attack on Kerry, denouncing his latest proposals as unacceptable. "Kerry does not have the right to decide where our borders will be," the top PLO official said. "If the U.S. wants, it can give parts of California or Washington to Israel. Kerry's framework agreement is very dangerous."

Israelis too are entitled to hold views and to express them

...All headliners say things in confidence and all know full well what the other side thinks. They should conduct their affairs as politely as possible. But flying off the handle and taking public umbrage for private banter isn’t only self-indulgent but also imperious.

Sarah Honig..
Another Tack..
15 January '14..

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon was forced to apologize for having seemingly slighted US Secretary of State John Kerry when he referred to his continual shuttles to Israel and the Palestinian Authority as “messianic” and “obsessive.” State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki described Ya’alon’s words as “offensive and inappropriate.”

That wasn’t all. Ya’alon’s criticism was blown up into a major diplomatic confrontation when an unnamed ”senior US official” demanded that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu “put this right by publicly expressing his disagreement with the statements against Secretary Kerry, the negotiations with the Palestinians and Kerry’s commitment to Israel’s security.”

This virtual ultimatum turned the entire incident quite overtly into a round of arm-wrestling in which Washington appeared determined to push Jerusalem’s arm down decisively.

But is any of this really about the emotional pain which Ya’alon purportedly inflicted on Kerry?

The notion that breaches of courtesy are insufferable in international relations is disingenuous in the very least. Otherwise, why would the current US administration adopt so lenient an attitude toward Iran, where America is daily denigrated as “the Big Satan?” The PA’s own higher-ups have themselves not shied away from verbal onslaughts on the US. Nevertheless, there were no reactions similar to that which greeted Ya’alon’s comment.

Moreover, the topmost American movers and shakers haven’t been excessively gracious toward their Israeli counterparts.

Memorably, a couple of years ago US President Barack Obama chitchatted chummily with French president Nicolas Sarkozy during the G20 summit in Cannes, both unaware that the microphone before them hadn’t been switched off. “I can’t stand him. He’s a liar,” a chagrined Sarkozy blurted in reference to Netanyahu. Sarkozy’s feathers were just then reportedly ruffled because Netanyahu didn’t credit him with Gilad Schalit’s release.

Pointedly, Obama not only failed to defend Netanyahu but he actually expressed unreserved agreement with his French interlocutor. “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you,” Obama complained.

The trouble was that this frank articulation of unambiguous aversion towards Israel’s democratically elected head of government – a staunch ally of America – was inadvertently broadcast to journalists covering the event.

No hint of an apology ever came from either Washington or Paris. Of course, it may be argued that what Obama and Sarkozy said was uttered in a private conversation that was not intended to be made public and hence their private comments don’t count.

Fantasy, Illusion and Kerry’s Potemkin Villages

...It must be strange to be an Israeli negotiator and to have to listen to Kerry’s nonsense and pretend to take it seriously (this is probably why Ya’alon had a career in the army rather than as a diplomat).

Fresnozionism.org..
14 January '14..

Gregory Potemkin was a favorite and lover of the Russian queen Catherine II. After [the] Russian conquest of modern Southern Ukraine and Crimea from the Ottoman Empire … Potemkin became governor of the region. The area had been totally devastated during the wars by the Russian army, and Potemkin’s major task consisted of rebuilding it and bringing in Russian settlers. As a new war was about to erupt between Russia and Ottoman empire, in 1787 Catherine II made an unprecedented six month trip to New Russia, with her court, several ambassadors, and (according to some sources) the Austrian emperor Joseph II, traveling incognito. The purpose of this trip was to impress Russia’s allies ahead of the new war. In fact, Potemkin assembled a few “mobile villages”, located on banks of Dnieper River. As soon as the barge carrying the queen arrived, Potemkin’s men dressed up as peasants would show up in the village. Once the barge left, the village had to be disassembled and rebuilt downstream overnight. — Wikipedia

A Potemkin Village is thus a false front, an illusion set up to fool observers into thinking there is substance where there is not. The Wikipedia article goes on to say that many historians think the Potemkin story has been exaggerated, fictionalized to make a good story.

The Obama/Kerry peace negotiations, unfortunately are not fictionalized. Kerry has built a Potemkin Village of wishful thinking that he would like to sell Israel. Here are some strong comments, attributed to Israel’s Defense Minister, Moshe Ya’alon, on the subject:

Speaking privately, Ya’alon said an American security plan that could ostensibly facilitate a safe withdrawal by Israel, and which calls for advanced electronic surveillance in the West Bank area instead of an Israeli military presence, would actually “ensure that Ben Gurion Airport and Netanya become a missile target,” which only “our continued presence in Judea, Samaria and the Jordan River” will prevent, according to the report.

“What are you talking about?” Ya’alon was said to have directly retorted to assertions by Kerry recently that his security proposal would render Israel’s eastern border more tranquil that the US-Canada border. “You’ve given us a plan based on advanced technologies — satellites, sensors, war rooms with TV screens — but with no presence in the field of our forces. How is that technology going to help when a Salafist or an Islamic Jihad terror cell tries to attack Israeli targets?” Ya’alon reportedly wondered. “How are satellites going to quash the rocket-building industry that’s developing in Nablus and that will launch rockets at Tel Aviv and the center of the country?”

He also hammered into Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, saying his continued rule of the West Bank was only thanks to Israel.

“The moment we leave Judea and Samaria he’s finished,” Ya’alon was quoted saying. “In practical terms for the last few months we’ve been holding talks not with the Palestinians, but with the Americans.”

Ya’alon points to the two Potemkin Villages created by Kerry: the security arrangements, and the false front that is the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Contrasting approaches on comments that are ‘offensive and inappropriate’

“I will continue to defend the security of Israel’s citizens with determination, responsibility and good judgment,”

LOTL..
14 January '14..





From Haviv Rettig Gur, The Times of Israel:

In a rare public rebuke of an Israeli official, a spokeswoman for the US State Department took Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon to task on Tuesday evening for calling US Secretary of State John Kerry “messianic” and “obsessive” over the latter’s pursuit of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

“The remarks of the Defense Minister [Ya'alon], if accurate, are offensive and inappropriate especially given all that the United States is doing to support Israel’s security needs,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a brief statement Tuesday in Rome, according to Reuters.

“Secretary Kerry and his team, including General [John] Allen, have been working day and night to try to promote a secure peace for Israel because of the Secretary’s deep concern for Israel’s future,” she added. “To question his motives and distort his proposals is not something we would expect from the defense minister of a close ally.” ....

....Ya’alon lashed out at Kerry and savaged Washington-led peace talks in private conversations, according to a report Tuesday in a major Israeli daily.

The unsourced report in the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper recounted the defense minister lambasting the proposed security arrangement drawn up by Kerry as part of his peace deal as being “not worth the paper it is printed on” and as a plan that wouldn’t provide security for Israel.

The report also quoted Ya’alon as calling Kerry “inexplicably obsessive” and “messianic” in his efforts to coax the two sides into a peace agreement. Ya’alon reportedly said Kerry has “nothing to teach me about the conflict with the Palestinians. All that can ‘save us’ is for John Kerry to win a Nobel Prize and leave us in peace.”

Although he didn't deny its substance, Ya’alon presented a softer tone Tuesday afternoon in responding to the report, but continued to warn of the dangers of an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.

ה (בוגי) יעלון - [[Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon

3 hours ago via mobile

בנוגע לפרסום הבוקר: היחסים בין ארצות הברית וישראל הם אינטימיים ובעלי משמעות רבה עבורנו. ארצות הברית היא ידידתנו הגדולה ביותר ובעלת הברית החשובה ביותר שלנו, וכשיש מחלוקות אנחנו מלבנים אותן בתוך החדר, כולל עם מזכיר המדינה קרי איתו אני מקיים שיחות רבות בנוגע לעתידה של ישראל. אמשיך לשמור בנחישות, באחריות ובשיקול דעת על ביטחונם של אזרחי ישראל.

“Relations between the United State and Israel are intimate and important to us. The United States is our greatest friend and most important ally, and when there are disagreements we air them inside the [discussion] room, including with Secretary of State Kerry, with whom I have held many discussions about the future of Israel,” Ya’alon said in a statement to the media.

“I will continue to defend the security of Israel’s citizens with determination, responsibility and good judgment,” he added.

On the other hand, back in November 2011 at the G-20 Summit in Cannes, an open-mic moment between American President Obama and French President Sarkozy elicited the following what might be construed as comments that are ‘offensive and inappropriate’.

From Judith Miller, Fox News:

Open mic. Open mouth. Insert foot.

It seems that politicians never learn: wearing a microphone is like carrying a loaded weapon. You can never be sure when it will go off, or in this case, go live.

The French government is deeply “chagrined” – now we know why it’s a French word – about the latest diplomatic “faux pas” that is turning into a major “scandale”: the all-too-candid conversation between French President Nicholas Sarkozy and President Obama about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the G-20 Summit in Cannes.

Unaware that the microphones used to enable translations were live, Sarkozy let Obama know just how he felt about his Israeli counterpart: "I can't stand him,” the French president was captured on tape as saying. “He's a liar." The normally silver-tongued American president did not object. "You’re fed up with him,” Obama replied. “But I have to work with him every day."

The French government, and even some journalists, say that the media shouldn’t have reported the exchange because it was picked up before the two leaders knew they were on-mic. In fact, most of the French press did not initially report it because Sarkozy's office had asked journalists not to turn on the headsets until the press conference began. Hence, the comments, under French media traditions, were considerate private, or as we say in America, “off the record.” In other words, we weren’t playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules (definitely not a Frenchman). But Arret Sur Images, a French website that analyzes media coverage of politics and current affairs, apparently didn’t’ get the “do not publish” memo....

And how did this revelation play out?