Herzog’s naive and intolerable deceit - by Isi Liebler

...It was surely utterly naïve and politically counterproductive to extend such unilateral concessions before obtaining a single indication of reciprocity from the Palestinians. But the worst travesty was the unprecedented initiative of an opposition leader to furtively engage in foreign affairs initiatives that conflict with the policies determined by a democratically elected government. When this is applied toward hostile forces that promote and endorse terrorism, it could even be considered seditious.

Isi Liebler..
Candidly Speaking from Jerusalem..
29 June '16..
Link: http://wordfromjerusalem.com/herzogs-intolerable-deceit/

Zionist Union Chairman MK Isaac Herzog is the scion of one of Israel’s most distinguished families. His late father Chaim served with distinction as president, and his grandfather, whose name he carries, was one of Israel’s most respected and beloved chief rabbis.

I have been lauding Herzog over the past year, relating to him as a Labor Zionist of the old school who had the ability to revive the party and rid it of the delusional leftists who alienated many of its former supporters and weakened it – almost to the point of destruction.

I bemoaned the fact that a unity government was not formed, insisting that Herzog, like the head of all Zionist parties, would basically be implementing the same policies as the current government. In this context, I believed that he would make an excellent foreign minister and enable Israel to display unity in the face of the concerted diplomatic pressures being exerted against us.

In January after the elections, while as leader of the opposition, Herzog continued castigating Netanyahu, he nevertheless publicly endorsed the consensus policy toward the Palestinians adopted by Professor Shlomo Avineri, Labor Zionism’s foremost intellectual.

Although he emphasized that he remained committed to a separation from the Palestinians, Avineri maintained that the Oslo Accords were no longer relevant as the Palestinian leadership refused to accept Israel’s right to exist and considered Israel’s destruction a higher priority than achieving their own statehood. Avineri concluded that under such circumstances, efforts to implement a two-state solution were delusionary.

Despite bitter protests and condemnations from the radical ranks of Labor, Herzog publicly identified with this approach, explicitly stating that there is “no chance of peace in this era.” Furthermore, he declared that the Israel Defense Forces must remain in the West Bank and in the Jordan Valley. He told French President François Hollande that “hatred and incitement among the Palestinians” are currently too intense to contemplate implementing a two-state solution.

Thus, it was a shocking revelation when it was disclosed last week that, prior to last year’s election, at the height of Palestinian incitement and frenzied calls to “save Al-Aqsa,” Herzog was secretly negotiating terms for a final settlement with the corrupt and degenerate Palestinian Authority. Through former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh, Herzog outlined the following surrealistic principles which were summarized in a secret letter of understanding with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and scheduled to be implemented following the elections.

- Israel would withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, i.e., from all of Judea and Samaria, with the exception of 4% territory swaps enabling Israel to retain portions of the settlement blocs. Those resident outside these areas would either be repatriated to Israel or obliged to accept Palestinian rule. Israel would retain a “symbolic” presence in the Jordan Valley in conjunction with Palestinian forces.
- East Jerusalem would become the capital of a Palestinian state with a single municipality acting under the jurisdiction of both Israel and the Palestinian State.
- The Temple Mount would be administered by an international force with an Israeli presence at the Western Wall.
- The Palestinian refugee issue would be resolved on the basis of U.N. Resolution 194 with a “joint decision” to accept those wishing to return or accept financial compensation. The Arabs claim that currently over 5 million people – the original refugees and their descendants are awaiting repatriation.

This is simply an extension of the Olmert formula – which was not approved by the cabinet or the Knesset and rejected by Abbas.

It was surely utterly naïve and politically counterproductive to extend such unilateral concessions before obtaining a single indication of reciprocity from the Palestinians. But the worst travesty was the unprecedented initiative of an opposition leader to furtively engage in foreign affairs initiatives that conflict with the policies determined by a democratically elected government. When this is applied toward hostile forces that promote and endorse terrorism, it could even be considered seditious.

What Happened to Israel’s Liberals? - by Jonathan Tobin

...Rather than being hateful to Arabs, Herzog just wants his party to stop acting as if the Israeli people haven’t been paying attention to the Palestinians. Once the natural party of government, they are now marginalized because they hitched their wagon to a peace process that was based on false hopes and a lack of realism about what Palestinians want....Biden can, if he likes, wait for the views of a far-left member of Zionist Union who opposes Herzog, like Stav Shaffir, to prevail in Israel. But until the Palestinians embrace peace and reject terror, there’s a better chance that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus will endorse Trump.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
21 April '16..

The other night during a speech to the left-wing J Street lobby, Vice President Biden lamented the fact that the Israeli people don’t agree with the Obama administration. From the moment they took office, President Obama and his team have been very clear about their disdain for Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Likud Party. But to their dismay, Netanyahu has won the last three elections and is regarded, despite being personally unpopular, as the only conceivable candidate to lead the country during the coalition negotiations that, in the Israeli system, are part of the postscript to each vote. To the applause of the J Street crowd, Biden said that he looked forward to the day when the views of a Knesset member who happens to be on the left-wing of Israel’s Zionist Union/Labour left-wing opposition party would once again prevail in the Knesset.

Biden shouldn’t hold his breath. Labour hasn’t won an election since 1999. For those who are counting, that’s seven losses in a row. But Isaac Herzog, the party’s current leader, can count. That’s why he’s been doing his best to try and re-position the party that now goes under the name Zionist Union (as part of its merger with former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni’s short-lived party) as part of the country’s political center rather than part of the left.

As I noted back in January, Herzog bowed to reality and stated publicly that a two-state solution — a stand that has been synonymous with the leading party in what used to be called the peace camp — was impossible to achieve in the foreseeable future. Though Herzog has plenty of criticisms to make of Netanyahu and wants to implement some limited unilateral measures on the West Bank to make the situation more livable that aren’t too different from the prime minister’s proposals, he also understood that Israel has no partner for peace among the Palestinians. Even Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas, the man that Obama has lauded as a champion of peace, won’t recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn. Nor will Abbas condemn terrorist attacks against Israelis even when, as happened during Biden’s recent visit, a shooting rampage resulted in the death of a non-Jewish American tourist who was a U.S. Army veteran.

But, with his party still lagging in third place in the polls behind the centrist Yesh Atid Party led by Yair Lapid as well as the still dominant Likud, Herzog has gone even further. At a meeting with Labour activists, he told them they were losing ground to Yesh Atid specifically because Lapid had positioned them to their right on national security while seeking to take a more populist stance on economic issues. If Labour wanted to ever win another election, it was going to have to stop giving the Israeli public the impression that they were primarily “Arab lovers” rather than one that knew how to act as a “ruling party” that could act in defense of the nation’s interests against Palestinians that still seek the Jewish state’s elimination.

Predictably that rather frank yet completely truthful evaluation of Labour’s problems has given the Israeli arbiters of liberal ideology conniption fits. Since the speech, Haaretz, which bills itself as the New York Times of Israel but whose politics are actually more analogous to an American left-wing rag like Mother Jones rather than the liberal mainstream media flagship, has been comparing Herzog to Donald Trump and blasting him as promoting hate.

Bahloul only represents his party. Why the excitement? - by Vic Rosenthal

...I hope Bahloul will not be punished for his impudence in saying what Arabs think. Rather, this incident should serve as the starting point for a discussion about what Jews – particularly in a major ‘Zionist’ political party – think.

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
10 April '16..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2016/04/why-the-excitement-bahloul-only-represents-his-party/

Zouheir Bahloul is an Arab citizen of Israel, a member of the Knesset for the ‘Zionist Union’ (once called the Labor Party) and a former radio sportscaster.

A few days ago he ignited a furor by saying that the Palestinian Arab who stabbed a soldier and then was shot dead while lying wounded on the ground was “not a terrorist:”

I agree the stabber is a murderer, but he is not a terrorist. My problem is when this word becomes too inclusive and turns every Palestinian into a terrorist.

Well, of course every Palestinian isn’t a terrorist, but why wasn’t this one? Later Bahloul clarified his meaning, digging himself an even deeper hole:

Bahloul said Israeli soldiers were “a symbol of the occupation” for Palestinians and asked why Jewish groups fighting British soldiers during the Mandate area could be considered as fighting for their freedom while Palestinians could not.

“What can a Palestinian, suffocating under the yoke of occupation for 49 years, do in order regain his freedom? The soldiers are, for him, a symbol of the occupation. Before 1948 there was the British Mandate here. Etzel, Lehi and the other Jewish organizations went out to the street to fight British soldiers and build your state, which is an amazing state. Why are the Palestinians not allowed to do so?”

Bahloul was attacked for his remarks by the Right, the moderate Left and the Center, all of whom understand well that there is no way a Jewish Israel in which the soldiers are everyone’s sons and daughters will accept them being legitimate targets. PM Netanyahu said,

MK Bahloul’s comments are shameful. IDF soldiers protect us with their bodies from bloodthirsty murderers. I expect all Israeli citizens, and members of Knesset in particular, to give them their full support.

Bahloul’s own party criticized him aggressively as well. “His statement established that he is not part of the Zionist Union,” said MK Eitan Cabel.

I beg to differ, MK Cabel! Bahloul is just expressing the logical consequences of the position held by his party. As the psychotic extremist of Ha’aretz, Gideon Levy wrote, Bahloul is indeed an “honest Arab.” The real problem is not Bahloul’s logic and honesty, but rather the wholesale acceptance of the ‘occupation’ narrative, according to which Israeli Jews are ‘occupying’ a land which is not theirs, ruling over ‘another people’.

The First to Benefit From Nuclear Deal? Iran’s Terrorist Allies

...By choosing not to demand that Iran change its behavior toward other nations, give up terrorism, or drop its calls for Israel’s destruction—a reasonable point considering that nuclear capability theoretically could give it the power to effectuate that scenario—the United States has flashed a green light to Iran for further adventurism in pursuit of its goal of regional hegemony. The president may pretend that the nuclear issue can be separated from other concerns about Iran, but those who must fear its behavior are not so foolish.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
13 April '15..

President Obama did everything he could to convince Israelis not to reelect Benjamin Netanyahu. But a position paper just issued by Israel’s chief opposition party makes it clear that on the issue that most separates the U.S. from Israel—the Iran nuclear deal—there isn’t all that much daylight between the Likud and the Zionist Union parties. In it, the Labor-led group states that the deal struck by the West and Iran needs to be changed and that when it comes to this issue, “there is no coalition or opposition,” just a solid Israeli position. There are a lot of reasons why this is so, but one was made obvious today with a report from Israel’s Channel 2 that said in recent weeks Iran had stepped up arms shipments to its Hezbollah allies in Lebanon as well as to Hamas in Gaza. With the U.S. prepared to end sanctions on Tehran as part of its nuclear agreement, this illustrates that among the chief beneficiaries of a revitalized Iranian economy will be the Islamist regime’s terrorist allies.

The Channel 2 report detailed that Iran has increased its already considerable flow of weapons and cash to its Hezbollah auxiliaries as well as to Hamas. Most troubling is the news that it is not satisfied with helping Hamas rebuild its terror tunnels and replenish its rocket arsenal in Gaza but is also seeking to arm cells of the Islamist group operating in the West Bank. Like Russia’s sale of sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles to Tehran, these moves are part of the inevitable exploitation of Western weakness by an Iranian regime that understands that it has scored a huge victory in the nuclear negotiations. This is a trend that will get only more dangerous as their economy begins to recover after the sanctions disappear.

Administration apologists may claim that Iran’s actions can be seen as a warning to Israel not to act on its own against its nuclear infrastructure. But Tehran knows as well as anyone that the chances of Israel launching a strike against them while the U.S. is engaged in negotiations over their nuclear ambitions is virtually nil. A more realistic analysis of these actions would see them for what they are, more evidence of Iran’s desire to extend its control over the entire region via the actions of its terrorist friends. In particular, it is hoping to use its growing influence to support the most radical Palestinian factions in order to make war with Israel more likely. That is the context in which most Israelis see U.S. efforts to create a new détente between Iran and the West.

The Zionist Union document also illustrates that for all of the demonization of Netanyahu that has been pursued by the administration and its liberal media cheering section, even his most bitter rivals largely accept his positions.