Defense/Security 10:05 PM 3/8/2014
Defense/Security 6:57 PM 3/8/2014
Defense/Security 9:00 PM 3/8/2014
Life Lessons with Judy Simon
Tuvia Brodie has a PhD from the University of Pittsburgh under the name Philip Brodie. He has worked for the University of Pittsburgh, Chatham College and American Express. He and his wife made aliyah in 2010. All of his children have followed. He believes in Israel's right to exist. He believes that the words of Tanach (the Jewish Bible) are meant for us. His blog address is http://tuviainil.blogspot.com He publishes 4-6 times a week on his blog. Please check the blog regularly for new posts.
Here are some headlines you might have missed:
-A Frustrated Gates Slams Israel, 09/06/2011, Middle East Clarity)
-Gates's gripes (Newsletter, 09/06/2011, Israel Hayom)
-Robert Gates Says Israel Is an Ungrateful Ally (Jeffrey Goldberg, 09/05/2011, Bloomberg Opinion)
-Defense Minister: Kerry is 'Obsessive and Messianic' (01/14/2014, Arutz Sheva)
-Yaalon: I Didn't Intend to Offend Kerry (01/14/2014, Arutz Sheva)
-US Takes Offense at Ya'alon's Remarks (01/14/2014, Arutz Sheva)
-US Demands Israeli Retraction of Ya'alon's Statements (01/14/2014, Arutz Sheva)
-White House Expects PM to Condemn Ya'alon Comments (01/14/2014, Arutz Sheva)
-Ya'alon Apologizes for Kerry Comments (01/15/2014, Arutz Sheva)
If you remember your lessons from Tanach (Jewish Bible) and Jewish history, you will recall that the West is generally considered to be the descendant of Edom. Edom, the Tanach tells us, is Esav, the wicked brother of Jacob. Esav and his descendants hate Jacob.
Jacob went on to become the father of the Jewish nation. Esav went on to conquer the world. At one point, Rome was Esav. That is, Rome was chief among Esav’s descendants (see Tractate Avodah Zara, 2b, The ArtScroll Series, Note 7, and ibid, 8b, Notes 14, 20). Today, some say America plays that role. America, they say, is the most powerful nation the world has ever seen--and the most powerful ‘Esav’ ever to live.
Esav and his descendants hate Jacob.
In 2011, US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, spoke before a meeting of the National Security Council Principals Committee. Jeffrey Goldberg, above, wrote that Gates made the following remarks two months before he retired; Wikipedia reports that he said these remarks two months after he had retired. At that Principals meeting, Gates declared that the US had given Israel much, but had received nothing in return.
His words were a slap in Israel’s face, for Israel in fact had given much to the US—and, according to Todd Warwick in Middle East Clarity, Gates, as Defense Secretary, should have known exactly what Israel had given to the US—valuable military advantage (see above, “A Frustrated Gates Slams Israel”, September 6, 2011). Quoting David Weinberg from Israel HaYom, Warwick writes that "Gates knows full well that recent upgrades in U.S.-Israel intelligence sharing and weapons development are to America's benefit as much as Israel's". Moreover, Weinberg wrote that Israel gives extensive training to US military units. Israel has provided the US technological advances. Israel has helped the US make major leaps forward in its anti-missile system—at a serious discount to the US.
Jeffrey Goldberg wrote (“Robert Gates Says Israel Is an Ungrateful Ally”) that Gates spoke about Israel directly to his President (Obama). Gates is reported to have said that Israel had become an ungrateful—and dangerous—ally.
Nevertheless, no one scolded Gates for such a bold, galling insult. No one told him to apologize to Israel.
No one in Israel took offense. No one in Israel demanded an apology. No one in Israel announced that they expected Gates to retract his insult.
Robert Gates is Edom. He doesn’t have to apologize to Jacob.
Jacob, however, must bow to Edom.
When headlines in Israel on January 14, 2014 declared that Israel Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon had said that Kerry was obsessive and Messianic, Israel’s news wires practically melted from a series of angry responses from the US. Over several hours, the State Department, unnamed Washington officials and then the White House itself expected an apology--and then demanded retraction--for Yaalon’s ‘offensive’ remarks.
Yaalon then had to humiliate himself before Edom: first, he explained that he didn’t mean to offend Kerry. Then, when that didn’t sit so well with the US, he apologized.
Edom is arrogant. Edom demands Jewish genuflection. Jacob is afraid. Jacob must—and will--bow before Esav.
Why must Israel be afraid? Why must Israel bow? Israel cannot achieve its Destiny when it behaves with such raw fear before Edom.
Israel must stand proud before the world or the world will trample on Israel. Israel is the spiritual center of the universe. Israel is the world’s Holy Land. Millions of tourists—most of them not Jewish—tell Israel that every year.
Israel is to be a Light unto the nations. It is to lead, not bow.
Israel must never bow to the wicked. Israel must never serve the cruel.
Prime Minister Netanyahu is reported to know his Tanach. He should know better than to demand an apology to appease an angry Edom.
Yaalon should never have apologized. At the very worst, the Prime Minister’s office should have issued a statement about the independence of its Ministers and its ties to the US—and then left it at that.
An apology was excessive fawning. It was unseemly. It was servile. Indeed, it was un-Jewish. Forcing that genuflection was an insult to the Jewish people.
What must the G-d of Israel think of such appeasement?
This week, Israel buries Ariel Sharon, former Prime Minister, war hero—and creator of the 2005 ‘Disengagement Plan’. As a result of that Disengagement, 8,000 Jews were expelled from Gaza—and Jihadi Jew-hate now bangs on Israel’s door.
Disengagement was a grand gesture. By making Gaza Jew-free, Prime Minister Sharon hoped to enhance Israel’s security. He hoped to polish Israel’s international reputation. He wanted to show how willing Israel was to make ‘tough decisions’ for peace.
But Israel didn’t get peace. It didn’t get security or a burnished reputation. It got 8,000 -12,000 rockets fired from Gaza, sometimes on a daily basis. It’s been demonized at the UN. It’s being threatened by the European Union. Gaza meanwhile, was supposed to become a haven for peace and prosperity. It’s turned out to be a ‘haven’ for corruption, unemployment and brutal rulers.
Disengagement failed. It’s become the poster-boy for failure.
But it’s not a failure for US Secretary of State John Kerry. Before Sharon was buried, Kerry said Sharon made ‘tough decisions’ for peace (“In tributes to Sharon, a not-so-subtle message for Netanyahu”, (01/12/14, Times of Israel). Kerry is said to have uttered these words hoping that current PM Netanyahu will learn a lesson: he should make his own Sharon-like ‘tough decisions for peace’.
But Sharon’s death does not remind everyone of ‘tough decisions for peace’—primarily because Sharon’s Disengagement didn’t beget ‘peace’. For some, Disengagement has empowered Jihadi extremism (listen to Hamas speeches). For others, Sharon’s death at precisely the moment Kerry promotes ‘peace’ (“ Kerry: 'Peace Now,' in 2014”, 01/13/14, Arutz Sheva), is a reminder of a different kind: those who surrender Jewish land pay for their treachery.
Is that possible? Well, here is a list of what has happened to the major players in the 2005 Gaza Disengagement Plan (see “Katzav Said: 'This is Happening to Me Because of Gush Katif', 01/02/11, Arutz Sheva; and “Sharon’s Fate Part of Stunning Downfall of Gush Katif Perpetrators”, Jewish Press, January 2, 2014):
- Ariel Sharon, the prime minister who carried out the Disengagement, suffered a stroke shortly afterward. He remained in a coma for almost nine years before passing away early January, 2014.
- Omri Sharon, Ariel’s son and close political aide, went to jail for corruption.
- Chaim Ramon was a senior minister in Sharon's government who championed the Disengagement. He was found guilty of sexual offenses.
- Dan Halutz, IDF Chief of Staff, was forced to resign after an investigative committee blamed him for botching the Second Lebanon War.
- Moshe Karadi, Commissioner of Police, Southern Command in 2005, was forced to resign after a committee of inquiry found fault with his actions regarding organized crime.
- Ehud Olmert was Sharon's deputy during the Disengagement. He replaced Sharon as Prime Minister--and continued to support the Disengagement decision. Olmert resigned after being charged with corruption.
- Uri Bar-Lev was Commander of the Police's Southern District. He resigned because of sexual misconduct allegations.
- Tzachi HaNegbi was a member of Sharon's government. He resigned from the Knesset after being found guilty of corruption.
- Avraham Hirschson was a minister in Sharon’s government. He was convicted of embezzlement.
-Niso Shacham was a police commander in 2005 caught on video vulgarly giving orders to his policeman to use excessive force on non-violent, unarmed civilians who had gathered to protest the Gaza expulsion. In 2013, he resigned from his post as Commander of the Jerusalem District after being indicted for sexual harassment, indecent assault, fraud and breach of trust.
-Dan Halutz was IDF Chief of Staff who had replaced Moshe Yaalon. Sharon didn’t trust Yaalon to carry out the expulsion order. Halutz did. He resigned from office in disgrace when it was discovered that he had sold off his investment portfolio just hours before the second Lebanon war began.
- Yonatan Bassi headed the Disengagement Authority. He was forced to leave his own community because of public anger against his support for expelling the 8,000 Gaza Jews.
- Moshe Katzav was President of Israel during Sharon’s Disengagement Plan. He has been found guilty of rape and serves time in prison.
-Shaul Mofaz was Minister of Defense for Ariel Sharon. In March, 2012, he reached the zenith of his political career. He defeated Tzipi Livni by a 61.7 vs 37.2 per cent vote to become leader of Israel’s Kadima Party. But then, under his leadership, Kadima collapsed from having won 22.5 per cent of Israel’s vote in the 2009 national election to 2.09 per cent in the 2013 national elections. In a matter of months, he plummeted from Leader of the opposition to ‘failure’.
There may have been others in public office who supported the Disengagement—and remain untouched by it. But these Disengagement advocates (above) have certainly suffered public humiliation.
Is this coincidence? Can the public humiliation of fourteen powerful people within eight years—all of whom embraced Disengagement--really be coincidence?
Former Israel President Katsav believes it is not coincidence. He is reported to have said that the charges which ruined his career were divine punishment for his role in the 2005 expulsion.
Not everyone buys such an argument. Most probably reject it. Still, Sharon’s death does come at an interesting time. There is ‘pressure-for-peace’ against Israel. Kerry uses Sharon’s death to promote peace just as others remember that Sharon’s surrender of Gaza did not bring peace. His death reminds them that, if anything, Disengagement brought Arab Jihad closer to Israel.
According to some, Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu has a choice. He must choose between John Kerry and the G-d of Israel. The question is, which message will he take away from Sharon’s death? He can choose the Kerry message of more surrender; or, he can choose the lesson that Israel’s land belongs to G-d, who may not be kind to those who give away what is His.
What choice will Netanyahu make?
Last month, two American academic organizations decided to boycott Israel. At first, there appeared to be little surprise that US academicians would do that. After all, US campuses have become anti-Israel hot-houses. But it turns out there could be a very big surprise here—for the boycotters.
This is a long story with a short--but potentially expensive--ending.
The smaller of the two organizations that turned against Israel--the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association (NAISA)--acted on December 15, 2013. On that date, the President of the NAISA posted a letter on the organization website to declare support for the boycott of Israeli academic institutions. This support was not the result of a membership vote. It came from ‘a member-generated petition asking that NAISA formally support the Boycott of Israeli Academic and Cultural Institutions that was initiated by [emphasis mine] the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel’.
Remember the name, ‘The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel’. We’ll come back to it.
The NAISA governing Council reached a consensus about the petition. It would support the boycott. But the President was careful. He added that if NAISA members wished to discuss the Boycott during the upcoming NAISA convention, they could do so.
As you’ll see in moment, the NAISA might be wise to have that discussion. It might want to change its mind.
At the same time the NAISA announced its pro-boycott support, the American Studies Association (ASA) was busy with its own boycott endorsement. But instead of declaring its support through a governing Council consensus that is open for discussion, the ASA had a more binding proposal.
It called for a membership vote.
According to Inside Higher education (““Not Just a Family Feud”, Elizabeth Redden, December 19, 2013), the ASA has 3,853 eligible voting members. But over a ten-day on-line boycott referendum in December, 2013, only 1,252 of those members voted. Nevertheless, sixty-six per cent of those 1,252 voters voted for the boycott.
Remember this vote. The ASA has 3,853 total voter-eligible members. 1,252 of them voted. Sixty-six per cent of that 1,252 votes is 826 pro-boycott votes. 826 votes for a boycott means that 21 per cent (a minority) of the ASA won a boycott endorsement.
When the NAISA and the ASA turned against Israel, nobody seemed to notice the NAISA. They’re probably too small to be noticed. But two essays appeared to react to the ASA vote.
In the first of these essays, Cornell University Law School professor William Jacobson declared on his blog (Legal Insurrection) that if the ASA voted to support an anti-Israel academic boycott, he (Jacobson) would file a complaint with the US Internal Revenue Service to challenge the ASA’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status (see “Tax-Exempt Status of American Studies Association to be challenged if Israel boycott resolution passes”, December 16, 2013). He would do this, he said, because engaging in an academic boycott does not satisfy the requirements of 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It violates those requirements.
On January 8, 2014, the Jerusalem Post reported that Jacobson had indeed filed that challenge (“American Studies Association’s tax-exempt status challenged,” Maya Shwayder). The ASA will now have to hire lawyers to defend itself.
Lawyers are expensive.
Also in mid-December 2013, on the last day of the on-line ASA vote, the Times of Israel published an essay by Nitsana Darshan-Leitner (“Schooling the ASA on boycotting Israel”, December 15, 2013). Darshan-Leitner is founder of an Israeli NGO, Shurat HaDin, also called, Israel Law Center. The purpose of this NGO is to sue terror organizations and those who promote anti-Israel discrimination. In her essay, Darshan-Leitner suggested that if the ASA voted to boycott Israel, she would sue them in US Federal and State courts for illegally promoting what both the US government and (at the very least) the State of New York had already termed, ‘illegal’.
On January 10, 2014, Israel news outlets reported that Shurat HaDin had sent a letter to ASA president-elect Elizabeth Duggan, notifying her it represents several Israeli professors. The letter warned Duggan of Shurat HaDin’s intent to file suit against the ASA in United States courts, should the ASA not take all immediate steps to cancel the boycott of Israeli institutions and academics (see “Shurat HaDin Threatens Action Over ASA Boycott”, Eldad Benari, Arutz Sheva).
The ASA may now have to hire lawyers to defend itself—if they have the money to do so.
Leaving the smaller NAISA aside for the moment, these two legal actions against the ASA are important for several reasons. First, they send a signal to all academics (who appear eager to bash Israel) that boycott calls—and, perhaps, other anti-Israel activities--will now be met with stiff opposition. These two legal filings suggest that, if you act out against Israel, you better be rich enough to hire a lawyer—or have lawyer friends who will be willing to work pro bono; hate and discrimination, in other words, have just gotten expensive.
Second, it sends a message to academic organizations that, while a vocal minority (for example, 21% of the ASA) may indeed have the power to ram through morally repugnant (and potentially illegal) votes, it may not be wise to empower such repugnancy. You could lose your tax-exempt status. You could get sued in Federal court. Legal fees could drive you to bankruptcy.
Third, it sends a message to organizations like the NAISA—which did not vote on the boycott—that support for (potentially) illegal boycotts may not be in its best interest. It might be wise for them to re-evaluate that support.
But there is a far more important reason for these legal actions. That reason is, to use an acronym, the MLA.
The MLA (Modern language Association) is like the NAISA and the ASA. It’s an academic organization. But it doesn’t have 1,000-4,000 members. It’s got 30,000 members.
In the academic world, the MLA is an 800-pound gorilla.
That’s important right now because, at this very moment that 800-pound gorilla is meeting in Chicago, Illinois for its 2014 national convention. The convention runs from January 9 -12, 2014.
According to the Chicago Tribune (“An academic scandal headed for Chicago”, Amy Stoken and Jack S. Levin, January 1, 2014), the MLA Convention offers opportunities for teachers of English and foreign languages "to share their scholarly findings and teaching experiences with colleagues and to discuss trends in the academy." To facilitate such opportunities, this year’s Convention is running 810 sessions (according to the Trib) so that members can learn, discuss and share. All but one of those 810 sessions covers topics in language and literature. The singular exception is a roundtable discussion entitled, “Academic Boycotts: A Conversation about Israel and Palestine."
It is the only political session of the Convention.
Can you guess where this is going?
Curiously, all the announced speakers at this roundtable are on record favouring a boycott. Apparently, only one side of the boycott question is to be represented. One participant is Omar Barghouti, a founding member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel—the driving force (according to some) of the world-wide boycott-Israel campaign.
You may remember The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel. It’s what the President of the NAISA referred to (above) when he posted his support for an anti-Israel boycott on the NAISA website.
Apparently, Mr Barghouti has been busy courting American academic organizations to support his attacks against Israel. He has now hit the big-time—speaker at a session of the MLA national convention.
Mr Barghouti is listed on the MLA Convention website as an ‘independent scholar’. He appears to have no academic credentials. Since a non-member of MLA is blocked from looking at speaker biographies, one must do an on-line search to discover what is the nature of Mr Batrghouti’s ‘independent scholarship’; but a quick google-search yields nothing.
But what one does discover is that the Homepage for Mr Barghouti’s organization does not maintain a very scholarly commitment to accuracy: in a post entitled, “Academic Boycott of Israel in 2013: A Tipping Point”, we read that “In mid- December 2013, the American Studies Association endorsed an academic boycott of Israel where 66 percent of the ASA membership [emphasis mine] voted” to support a boycott of Israel.
But if you remember the arithmetic of that ASA vote (above), you’ll remember that it wasn’t 66% of the ASA membership that voted for the boycott. It was 66% of the 1,252 members who voted in the on-line referendum. The number of ASA members who voted for the boycott did not represent 66% of the membership—they represented only 21% of the membership.
That’s a rather unscholarly error. It’s a difference between a minority wanting a boycott and an overwhelming majority wanting it. In fact, given the nature of his Homepage, Barghouti appears more propagandist than scholar. What’s he doing at a scholar’s convention?
The MLA is a venerable academic organization which has for decades promoted professionalism and quality in education and scholarship. Where are Barghouti’s professional credentials? Where is his scholarship?
The MLA is treading on thin ice. Judging from the public record, Barghouti may not belong at the MLA. He appears to have no academic appointment worth mentioning on the MLA convention public website. His public work seems unscholarly. His organization appears to promote what is illegal.
It’s one thing for small organizations like the NAISA or the ASA to be hijacked by those who would push what is unseemly and potentially illegal. But the 30,000-member MLA?
Shurat HaDin and William Jacobson (above) might want to look up the MLA’s mailing address.
Do you read Arab news? You should.
There are peace talks going on. If you read Israel’s press to see how Jews see these talks, you might want to know how Muslims see these talks.
The headlines—and comments—below come from January 7 -9, 2014.
-Dozens of settlers, accompanied by rabbi, storm al-Aqsa Mosque
-IOF forces Jerusalemite to raze his own home
- “Stones of Baked Clay” ... Hope For Liberation & Victory
- In the anniversary of Nakba day: We will [be] back to our land
- The Zionist project must end
-Barghouthi: Kerry's initiative seeks to prolong Israeli occupation
-Futility of current talks between Israel and PA
Palestinian Authority (PA)/Fatah news
-Fatah proposes unity government plan to Hamas
-Abbas discusses peace process with Jordanian king
-Analysis: Why Palestinian leadership is right to engage in peace talks
- Palestinian NGO decries Israeli 'excessive force'
-Analysis: On the 'Jewish State of Israel'
For the first time in months, both the Hamas and Fatah news sites are running headlines about the current round of Arab-Israel peace talks. But the news here is not the same news you see on Israeli sites. There is a significant difference between Arab and Jewish views of this ‘peace’.
In Israel, an informal look at news sites suggests that perhaps 60 per cent (or, 60+ per cent) of headlines present pro-peace features, news and analysis. Most of the pro-peace stories appear to be written by Jews.
Very few articles against ‘peace’ appear in the Israeli press. The overwhelming impression is, as one Leftist recently said, ‘most Israelis want peace.’
But then, the Israeli press is far from objective. Too often, when we see an overwhelming number of stories favouring a single issue, we learn after the fact that editors were working overtime to sell a slanted version of the news.
The Hamas-Fatah sites tell a different tale. Arabs don’t promote a peace with Israel the way Israel’s press promotes a peace with the Arab. If a pro-peace essay does appear on these Arab sites, it’s probably been written by a Westerner (“Analysis: Why Palestinian leadership is right to engage in peace talks”). Then, virtually all essays about the peace talks focus on—or are based upon--only two issues: (1) Palestinian national rights cannot be compromised; and (2) peace with the Occupier (Israel) will not happen unless all Palestinian demands are met.
As you read through the current batch of Israeli and Arab peace-talk essays, you’re going to have to be careful. If you don’t understand what words mean, you are not going to understand what’s happening.
Here is the most important word you must understand: ’Palestine’.
If current stories in the Israeli press are any indicator, ‘Palestine’ is a trick word. It doesn’t mean what Israelis—particularly Leftist Israelis--think it means.
When the United States, the European Union (EU) and virtually all Israeli Leftists speak of a new Arab state to be called ‘Palestine’, they refer specifically to land that is to be surrendered by Israel. Today, that land is called Judea- Samaria. Perhaps land from the Jordan River Valley will be included. Gaza, already under Arab control, is included.
To the US, the EU and Israel Leftists, this is the geography upon which ‘Palestine’ will sit. It will share a border with Israel.
But for the Arab, Palestine does not share a border with Israel. Palestine is Israel.
The Arab use of the word, Palestine, does not conform to the definition used by the US, EU and Israel’s Leftists. The Arab definition that you see in Hamas/Fatah news stories refers to a different ‘Palestine’. It’s a definition which, though different, might actually be more accurate than the one used by Israel and the West.
The Arab use of the word, ‘Palestine’, does not refer to Judea-Samaria, the Jordan River valley or Gaza. It refers to UN Resolution 181. This is the 1947 UN Resolution that outlined how the “Future government of Palestine” would be divided.
The ‘Palestine’ of that 1947 UN Resolution was, essentially, the land-mass of modern 21st Century Israel. The intent of 181 was to divide that Palestine between Jew and Arab.
That Palestine was to become two states—a Jewish state and an Arab state.
But the Arabs didn’t want to share. They attacked. They wanted only one state for that entire Palestine. They intended to remove the Jewish portion of that Palestine.
Nevertheless, that portion of Palestine still remains in Jewish hands. Nevertheless, the Arabs still want it for themselves.
Arab wars against Israel have always aimed to liberate that portion of 1947 Palestine from the Jew. To the Arab, the Jew has ‘occupied’ what Arabs self-define as ‘Arab land’. It’s been that way since 1947. For the Arab, what is today’s Israel is nothing more than occupied Arab land—and the Israel Defense Force (IDF) is the IOF, the Israel Occupation Force (“IOF forces Jerusalemite to raze his own home”).
Westerners, including Israeli Leftists, do not understand this distinction. They should.
When Arabs want to liberate Palestine, they are not talking about Judea-Samaria. They’re talking about that 1947 Palestine. That means that they want all of Israel—Haifa, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Acco, etc.
Arabs do not see these peace talks as a prelude to peace. If they sign a Kerry plan (whatever the details), they’ll only get Judea-Samaria and perhaps a portion of the Jordan River valley. Given their goal of getting all of Israel, such a deal would be just another Western attempt to create a NEW Nakba for the Arab—a new national Arab catastrophe (".Barghouthi: Kerry's initiative seeks to prolong Israeli occupation").
In other words, to the Arab, a peace based on receiving just Judea-Samaria will be a disaster.
To the Arab, the 1947 ‘Palestine’ must be Jew-free. That is the only end-game. Any Arab who signs an agreement for a different end-game is a ‘capitulationist’ (“Futility of current talks between Israel and PA”).
This is not outrageous extremism. It is not fantasy. It’s the middle-of-the-road position for the Arab. It’s what you’ll read every day in Hama/Fatah news.
Here are some recent news headlines you may have overlooked. The headlines—and the commentary--cover the period January 3 -7, 2014.
-EU-Funded NGO Dehumanizes Jews on PA TV (01/03/14, Arutz Sheva)
-'Palestinian Authority under Abbas is Anti-Semitic' (01/04/14 Arutz Sheva)
- [Israeli Arab] MK Tibi: Abbas Will Never Concede (01/05/14, Arutz Sheva)
- Abbas said to reject Kerry call to recognize Israel as Jewish state (01/04/14, Times of Israel).
- Kerry: Netanyahu, Abbas Made Significant Concessions (01/06/14, Arutz Sheva)
- US-Brokered Deal 'Just the First Stage' in Israel's Demise (01/06/14, Arutz Sheva)
- Ex-PM Olmert Calls Bibi a 'Fool', Urges Deal with PA (01/06/14, Arutz Sheva)
Israel’s Left has come out swinging at Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The cause for this attack is the peace plan that US Secretary of State John Kerry says he’s about to present (by March, 2014).
Israel’s Left is like that. When they see something they think will give them a happy ending, they don’t celebrate their victory. They attack someone.
They’re doing it again this week, this time calling their nemesis Benjamin Netanyahu a fool. This attack is a good one. It’s cute. It’s creative. It makes Netanyahu a fool no matter what he does about current peace talks. He’s fool if he rejects all the hard work Kerry is doing on Israel’s behalf. But he’s also a fool if he accepts Kerry’s peace—or, as Leftist ex-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert so smartly put it, “even a foolish Prime Minister will turn out well," after accepting a peace plan.
Notice how the word, ‘foolish,’ got placed into that sentence. It’s the Left’s way of complimenting the Prime Minister: even a fool can get something right!
But as Olmert slams Netanyahu, he reveals himself. For example, he says that an Israeli proposal to identify land swaps to exchange with the Palestinian Authority (PA) as part of a peace agreement is, essentially, a non-starter. There’ll be no peace with such a proposal, he said in a recent speech at Hebrew University.
That’s interesting. The current peace talks are supposed to be based on swaps. This idea is from US President Barack Obama. Peace is supposed to be based on 1967 lines—with land swaps so Israel could keep its largest ‘settlement’ blocks in Judea-Samaria.
Now Israel’s Left rejects that plan?
Olmert doesn’t spell out how Israel finds peace. But that’s okay because that’s how the Left works: slam the opposition --and be sure to ignore reality. The Left in Israel plays a hit-and-run game: hit hard when no one’s looking and then run.
But the reality Olmert refuses to address is visible in this week’s news cycle: first, the PA under Abbas is anti-Semitic; and second, as a consequence of that Jew-hate, PA leaders see a Kerry peace plan as just the first stage in the ultimate destruction of Israel.
This last statement is not the mad ravings of religious Jews or Right-wing extremists, as the Left might want you to believe. These words come from the PA itself. Specifically, they come from Abbas Zaki. Zaki is a senior member of the central committee of Fatah. Fatah is the Arab political Party which controls the PA. Fatah is headed by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
Zaki told a Syrian TV interviewer that any peace agreement with Israel will simply be the "first stage" in eradicating Israel altogether. Zaki was so proud of his interview he posted a clip of it on his Facebook. It was quickly translated and circulated by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). You can watch the interview at palwatch.org. It’s a PMW Bulletin, dated January 6, 2014, titled, “PA leader: Stages plan to eliminate Israel is basis of PA policy”. It’s also available at Arutz Sheva, embedded in the article, “PA leader: Stages plan to eliminate Israel is basis of PA policy”, January 6, 2014.
Zaki explained that the Palestinian goal of eradicating the Jewish state will not be achieved through military conquest. Israel is too strong for that approach. The defeat of Israel will come through stages—through diplomacy and terror.
Israel’s Left shows why. Every time a series of terror attacks hits Israel—and every time the West and/or the PA threaten Israel--it is the Left that cries first that we can get peace only through surrender.
It’s an odd—and suicidal—belief. But it’s what the Left wants.
Read the news. Read how the Left, essentially, says, ‘we must surrender land or perish’. Then read how the PA repeatedly declares it will destroy us.
Read also how, during peace talks, no less--when Arabs should be talking about a ‘peace dividend’--terror attacks don’t fall. They skyrocket.
The Left sells national suicide. They sell a poison pill—a peace they say will save you but which will actually kill you.
Don’t buy it.