2012 Olive Tree Initiative visits West Bank on a "non-political " "educational" tour. In this photo a UCI Professor and a UCI Vice Chancellor are wearing Arafat "look alike" kaffiyeh. (Photo: Ha'emet here)
Jewicidals fund these annihilationist education programs. Jewish Federation strikes again! The Jewish Federation of Orange County funds Olive Tree Initiative (OTI) Student Programs, supported and promoted by Hillel.
Why are Jewish and Christian University students posing under this portrait?
"Yasser
Arafat, is considered the father of modern terrorism. He is directly
responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Israeli citizens,
the deaths of untold numbers of Arabs and the killing of more than 100
U.S. citizens. Among the Americans were two diplomats, whose cruel
murders in Sudan Arafat ordered by radio from his Beirut headquarters. In
1995, Ariel Sharon said, "I don't know anyone other than Arafat who has
as much civilian Jewish blood on his hands since the time of the
Nazis."
Why are Jewish and Christian students posing under this portrait?
"The PLO under Arafat was also responsible for the massacre of 26
people, mostly children, in the Netiv Meir school in Maalot in May 1974.
[my sister was in the area at that horrible moment]
PLO organization perpetrated the Munich Olympics slaughter, killing eleven Israeli athletes in 1972.
In Lebanon, Arafat's forces killed hundreds of thousands of Christians, destroyed Christian villages, and burned churches....."
It is with great sadness that the Sun has received the news of the death of Israel’s seventh prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir. He deserved a great deal more regard than he was accorded in the bien pensant precincts in America and Europe, where he was set down as an extremist and a stubborn … what? simpleton? Yet a decade after he left power it can be said that his policies, had they been pursued, would have put us in a better place than we are in today. His career, his character will repay careful study in a time when friends of both Israel and America are being serenaded by the sirens of appeasement. (NY Sun)
The proud, loyal and steadfast Yitzhak Shamir has passed away. His leadership harkens back to an era in Israeli history where leaders were passionate Zionists who stood their ground and didn't cede precious land to annihilationists and Jew-haters. How we yearn for such men.
The vile and self-loathing Haaretz headlined his obit, "Yitzhak Shamir, 1915-2012: A modest man, an uninspiring leader - and a genuine zealot." Sick. Their hate, it overwhelms them. They can't be decent even in the first moments of an Israeli leader's passing. Haaretz gave Arafat's AIDS-related death great respect. His obit heralded that bloodthirsty Jew-killer as the "father of the Palestinian nation."
Gilada Diamant, Yitzhak Shamir's daughter, said that her father "belonged to a completely different generation of leaders, people with values and beliefs. I hope that we have more people like him in the future. His political doing has undoubtedly left its mark on the State of Israel."
Tributes poured in Saturday night, celebrating the life of former Prime Minister Yizchak Shamir
Tributes to the life of Yitzchak Shamir, former Prime Minister of Israel, poured in on Saturday night as word spread of his death. Shamir passed away on Shabbat after a long illness at the age of 96.
In a statement, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said that Shamir was “a member of the generation of giants that established the State of Israel and fought for the freedom of the Jewish people in its land. As Prime Minister, Yitzchak Shamir acted to ensure the security of the State of Israel and its future, and was a sterling example of faithfulness to the future of the Jewish people.” Netanyahu said in the statement that he “expressed deep sadness over the death of Yitzchak Shamir.”
Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that “Yitzchak Shamir acted his entire life as a solid rock for the people of Israel, without compromise. In the underground, in the Mossad, and in the government of Israel as Prime Minister, Shamir acted to ensure the security of the people on Israel in its land, and ensuring its future. The struggle to remove the British from the Land of Israel and his deep knowledge and recognition of the history of the Jewish people were basic elements of his identity and directed his actions. Yitzchak Shamir, throughout his life, asked what was best for the security of the state, what as good for the people of Israel, and he acted according to this.”
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that “Yitzchak Shamir was one of the great leaders of the State of Israel. He was a man who had a great part in the establishment of the State and served it his entire life, out of a sense of faith and dedication.”
Kadima head Shaul Mofaz saod that “Prime Minister Yitzchak Shamir was a leader who guided Israel with faith and wisdom. The patience that Shamir showed during the Gulf War proved to be the right choice, which strengthened Israel, along with his decision to attend the Madrid Conference, despite his views.” He will also be remembered, Mofaz said, as the man who set off the wave of aliyah of Ethiopian Jews to Israel.
The Yesha Council, too, issued a statement, saying that Shamir was “a fighter for the freedom of Israel throughout his life, in the underground, the defense forces, and as leader of the government. Shamir strengthened the hold of the state of Israel on parts of its homeland. He was able to stand solidly against many pressures, and he will be remembered as a prime example of Jewish leadership.”
Samaria Council head Gershon Mesika said that “residents of Samaria, together with the rest of the nation, are in mourning over the death of a builder of Israel. As Prime Minister he was responsible for much building in Judea and Samaria. He will be remembered as a man of vision and a leader of building in Samaria and the Land of Israel, a most loyal leader of the land and the people. We will learn from his deeds and continue in his path,” Mesika added.
For those of us who haven't heard what proud, crystal clear leadership sounds like, having been subjected to the low state of discourse under the Obama regime, this is a breath of clean, fresh air. Pure oxygen.
Full text here. (hat tip Fern) Photo below: President Barack Obama meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. Associated Press.
Rubbing my eyes in disbelief. After years of thousands of rockets from Gaza, Israel finally took defensive action last January. After years of doing nothing, leaving their population at the mercy of Islamic jihad, Israel removed the rocket launchers, missiles (but not before calling all the fakestinian homes multiple times, and dropping hundreds of thousands of leaflets letting them know that the rocket launcher in their living rooms were going to be removed).
Now they are paying the jiyza to the Islamic (OIC) driven UN. To what end? For what? What are they buying? A five minute reprieve from the world's most reviled and bloodthirsty bully?
Israel should tell the UN to go clitorectomize itself.
The United Nations is to accept more than $10 million (£6.2 million) from Israel as compensation for damage caused during the war in Gaza — a deal branded a cheap buyout by its own staff in the territory.
UN officials said the agreement would be announced in the coming days. It is the first time Israel is known to have paid the organisation compensation for damage to its facilities in Palestinian territories, but Israeli officials emphasised that it would not set a precedent. (more here) hat tip Kenny S
Yes, indeed. Finally the rational man speaks for all men. Civilized man vs Savage. Yes, in that court case where the very argument of the free world will be put on trial, I want a Jewish lawyer :)
Meanwhile, the Sanhedrin – a Jerusalem-based organization of rabbis and
Torah scholars seeking to renew the supreme Jewish court for the Jewish People
in the form of a central Jewish-legal authoritative body – has issued an
“injunction” to “prohibit the UN Security Council from discussing the Goldstone
Report.”
A copy of the order has been sent to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, to
the Rotating Chairman of the Security Council, and to Council members.
The
Sanhedrin also calls for a revision of the UN Charter “and of the laws of war,
with regard to the fight against terror organizations and terrorist states.”
Avoiding this responsibility, the Sanhedrin states, “nullifies the legitimacy of
the United Nations as a fair and representative organization that seeks to bring
peace, and defeats the purpose for which it was established.” If a totally
neutral investigative commission is not established, the Sanhedrin demands
“steps to establish a new international framework to bring peace and resolve
disputes, an organization that operates according to laws that reflect the
vision of the prophets.”
The
Sanhedrin echoes much of the public criticism that has been leveled against the
Goldstone Commission, calling it “tainted by malicious politicization” in
deliberately disregarding the long years of anti-Israel aggression and rocket
attacks by “Hamas and other ‘Palestinian’ organizations.”
“The
report does not relate to the serious scope of continuous violations of
international law by the Palestinians,” the Sanhedrin states. “For that reason,
we encourage the government of Israel not to allow itself to be called to
judgment before hostile forums.”
Other
excerpts from the Sanhedrin’s injunction: “The UN’s actions [served to] deny
Israel and the world the possibility of subduing terror, by defining Israel’s
struggle against terror as a war crime, tying Israel’s hands and feet,
acquiescing to its destruction (G-d forbid), and deterring its fighters by
threatening them with arrest warrants all over the world.”
“In taking
such action, the UN has abandoned all basic standards of justice and freedom,
and has turned the victim into the offender. By supporting the Goldstone Report,
the UN has presumed to revoke the Torah law - which has become a basic tenet of
natural international law – which states that if someone rises up to kill you,
kill him first.”
“The UN has become an entity that aids and abets aggression and bloodshed,
and an indirect cause in arousing strife and war in the world. The UN helps
terrorists escape defeat, thus preventing the achievement of peace, life, and
world stability.”
The Sanhedrin also notes that the UN Declaration of Human Rights is based
more on the spirit, faith, Bible, prophetic visions, culture, conduct,
philosophy and thought of the Jewish People than on any other national or
cultural code in the world – yet “the UN is making perverted use of this
declaration against a peace-loving nation [Israel] more than against any other
nation, in order to destroy and exterminate it. As a result, this will lead to
the death of billions of human beings, as the Jewish Sages said in the Chapters
of the Fathers, ‘The sword of war comes to the world because of the delay and
perversion of justice, and for interpreting the Torah in contradiction of its
basic laws.’”
Good vs evil Kindness vs cruelty Freedom vs submission
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a
much-discussed speech on Sunday, endorsing a demilitarized Palestinian state and
responding to Pres. Barack Obama’s recent Cairo address, among other things.
Caroline Glick took a few questions about it and the Iranian elections this
morning.
Caroline is senior contributing editor of the Jerusalem
Post and the senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for
Security Policy. She’s also author of Shackled
Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad. Here’s the conversation:
LOPEZ: Is it shocking Netanyahu would
come out for a Palestinian state?
GLICK: It
is not shocking that Netanyahu would set out the conditions under which he would
agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state. The Obama administration’s
obsession with creating one in Israel’s heartland as quickly as possible
regardless of the character of Palestinian society, Palestinian support for the
destruction of Israel, and the close ties the U.S.-sponsored Palestinian
Authority shares with global terror groups and state sponsors of terror like
Hezbollah and Iran made it necessary for Israel’s premier to make it very clear
what must happen before Israel will agree to proceed on this path.
LOPEZ: Is this anything remotely like a
breakthrough?
GLICK: There are only two ways
that Netanyahu’s speech can constitute a breakthrough. First, in the unlikely
circumstance that the Obama administration actually cares about Israel’s
concerns, Netanyahu’s speech should give the president and his advisors pause
before they renew their massive pressure on Israel to make dangerous concessions
to the Palestinians.
Second, Netanyahu’s speech could empower Israel’s
supporters in Congress to begin questioning the administration’s harsh treatment
of the U.S.’s closest ally in the Middle East and so perhaps act as a break on
the administration’s moves to steamroll Israel. Aside from that, what his speech
served to do was expose just how radical the Palestinian and Arab position on
Israel is. The Palestinians reacted to Netanyahu’s speech with calls to war in
retaliation for his demand that they recognize Israel’s right to exist. This is
not the sort of behavior one might expect from supposedly “moderate” Palestinian
political leaders.
LOPEZ: Will the U.S.
and Israel agree on settlements? Have we entered a chill in our
relationship?
GLICK: Obama and his advisors have made clear that
their view on the settlements is not based on facts. It is based on their
acceptance of the false Arab narrative of the Middle East conflict. They accept
Arab historical revisionism that places the cart before the horse by claiming
that Israel’s presence in the disputed territories is the cause of the conflict
when in fact Israel’s presence in the disputed territories is a consequence of
their continuous attempts to invade and destroy Israel. Since the Obama
administration’s view is based on a false assertion, it is impermeable to fact
and rational argument and therefore it is unlikely to change.
LOPEZ: Is it significant that Netanyahu
responded to Obama’s Cairo speech?
GLICK: It
is very significant for Israel and world Jewry and perhaps for Israel’s
supporters that Netanyahu responded to Obama’s Cairo speech. That speech was
full of distortions of Jewish history and deeply dismissive of the Jewish claims
to our homeland. It was absolutely necessary for Netanyahu to respond to Obama’s
false and hideous assertion that Israel owes its creation to the Holocaust. And
in explaining that the Holocaust could only happen because Israel didn’t exist
at the time and by setting out the true 3,500-year-old Jewish connection to the
land Netanyahu provided a necessary corrective to Obama’s move to write the
Jewish people out of the history of the Middle East. Here too, Obama’s position
is based on an Arab myth — most enthusiastically propounded today by the likes
of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — that the Jews are interlopers in the
region.
LOPEZ: How bad might that be
if a new intifada begins? Or a war between Israel and a neighbor?
GLICK: If the Palestinians follow through with their threat
to renew their terror war against Israel it will be quite bad. This is so not
because Israel will be unable to defend itself. Israel has the means to defend
itself. It will be quite bad because, in light of the hostile treatment Israel
is suffering at the hands of the Obama administration, and given the central
role the U.S. under Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton is playing in arming and training the
Palestinian army that will likely be attacking Israeli targets in Judea and
Samaria, the U.S. may well side with the Arabs against Israel. The
administration is already placing limitations on arms sales to Israel. In this
event, Israel will have to move quickly to find other suppliers.
It is
unlikely today that Arab states will go to war with Israel, although that could
change quickly if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. In that event, the Iranians
will be in a position to blackmail Arab states like Egypt and Jordan into
abrogating their peace treaties with Israel and opening hostilities against it.
Iran would accomplish this task by threatening to overthrow the Mubarak regime
and the Hashemite Kingdom. It is this specter — along with the specter of
nuclear attack and chronic terror violence conducted under Iran’s nuclear
umbrella — that makes it essential for Israel to move quickly to prevent Iran
from acquiring nuclear weapons.
LOPEZ:
How nervous is Israel about Ahmadinejad’s “reelection”?
GLICK: In a round about sort of way, Ahmadinejad’s
“reelection” empowers Israel to take the necessary action. By stealing the
election, Ahmadinejad now stands in open opposition to the Iranian people. This
decreases the likelihood that the public will rally around the regime in the
event of an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear installations.
Ahmadinejad’s open hatred of the U.S. and his humiliation of the Obama
administration will similarly make it more difficult politically for the
administration to prevent Israel from striking Iran. If before the Iranian
elections it was easy to see the administration signing on to U.N. Security
Council sanctions against Israel in the event of an Israeli strike against Iran,
or even shooting down Israeli aircraft en route to Iran, in their aftermath,
such prospects seem more unlikely.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's speech Sunday evening at
Bar-Ilan University had one goal: To get US President Barack Obama off of
Israel's back.Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's speech Sunday evening at Bar-Ilan University had one goal: To get US President Barack Obama off of Israel's back.
Netanyahu's speech was an eloquent, rational and at times impassioned defense of Israel. For Israeli ears, after years of former prime minister Ehud Olmert's and former foreign minister Tzipi Livni's continuous assaults on Israeli rights, and their strident defenses of capitulation to the Palestinians and the Syrians, Netanyahu's address was a breath of fresh air. But it is hard to see how it could have possibly had any lasting impact on Obama or his advisers.
To be moved by rational argument, a person has to be open to rational discourse. And what we have witnessed over the past week with the Obama administration's reactions to both North Korea's nuclear brinksmanship and Iran's sham elections is that its foreign policy is not informed by rationality but by the president's morally relative, post-modern ideology. In this anti-intellectual and anti-rational climate, Netanyahu's speech has little chance of making a lasting impact on the White House.
If rational thought was the basis for the administration's policymaking on foreign affairs, North Korea's decisions to test long range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, send two US citizens to long prison terms and then threaten nuclear war should have made the administration reconsider its current policy of seeking the approval and assistance of North Korea's primary enabler - China - for any action it takes against Pyongyang. As Nicholas Eberstadt suggested in Friday's Wall Street Journal, rather than spending its time passing UN Security Council resolutions with no enforcement mechanisms against North Korea, the administration would be working with a coalition of the willing to adopt measures aimed at lowering the threat North Korea constitutes to regional, US and global security through its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and its proliferation activities.
But the administration has done no such thing. Instead of working with and strengthening its allies, it has opted to work with North Korea's allies China and Russia to forge a Security Council resolution harsh enough to convince North Korean leader Kim Jung Il to threaten nuclear war, but too weak to degrade his capacity to wage one.
Will Obama bow to the Jewish leader? ......lol! Of course, Obama would rather eat glass shards, though he had no trouble bowing to the Muslim king. But I tip my hat to Netanyahu.
He was eloquent, forthright, and masterful.
He did not buy into the ethnic cleansing of no more natural growth. He said, more natural growth. Didn't give the two state legs, but I loved the idea of a demilitarized jihad (then what do they have?).
The idea of a disarmed "Palestinian state". Yeah, I can see the jihad going for that. They live to kill.
A jihadi without a gun is like a Jew without a song.
It could have been so much worse. It could have Olmert, it could have been Livni. Don't make perfect the enemy of the good.Netanyahu hit the right notes.
"In
any peace agreement, the territory under Palestinian control must be
disarmed, with solid security guarantees for Israel,"
"If we get this guarantee for demilitarization and necessary
security arrangements for Israel, and if the Palestinians recognize
Israel as the state of the Jewish people, we will be willing in a real
peace agreement to reach a solution of a demilitarized Palestinian
state alongside the Jewish state,"
Logical, reasoned and clear. The world will grand mal seize.
Netanyahu also said the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a
Jewish state, and he declared that the solution of the Palestinian
refugee problem must be "outside Israel."
"I call on you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of
the Palestinian Authority: Let us begin peace negotiations immediately,
without preconditions,"
"Israel is committed to international
agreements and expects all the other parties to fulfill their
obligations as well."
Netanyahu also called upon all Arab leaders to meet him and contribute to Palestinian economic development.
He did not disappoint those clamoring to be free and stay free.
I will update with the text as soon as possible.
UPDATE: As I love to commiserate with Nidra [Poller], here is her reaction -- from the other front line, France:
I followed Bibi’s
speech on a live stream from Bar Ilan. Reception
was shaky. I’ll have to see the written text to make a proper
analysis. But here’s my first reaction: I was happy! I was happy
because he stood up to Barack Hussein Obama like a proud Israeli. He
didn’t swallow even a crumb of that lethal narrative about how
Israel was a consolation prize for the Holocaust and Israel had been
stuck in the Palestinian’s craw for 61 years, and Israel is the
cause of all the world’s ills…
He stated our
conditions. Recognition that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish
people. We are here because this is our land. Give up trying to kill
us by every means imaginable and unimaginable. Forget about flooding
us with refugees. We took the refugees from Arab lands, you take care
of your own refugees. Jerusalem will never be divided. We will make
no commitment to restricting growth in the settlements. We tried
every kind of peace plan, every kind of withdrawal. It doesn’t
work.
We will not allow the
creation of another Hamastan that can attack Tel Aviv, ben Gurion
airport… We will not talk to Hamas, we don’t talk to people who
want to destroy us.
He began with shalom and
ended with shalom and spoke of shalom all through his speech. Shalom
is the peace we want. Real peace, with fruitful multiplication and
swords turned into plowshares. He held out a vision of the kind of
peace that could exist in the Middle East IF AND ONLY IF Israel’s
neighbors accept her existence as a Jewish state.
Towards the end, he spoke
of Palestinians, a flag and a hymn. Maybe I listened selectively. I
didn’t hear the word “state.” Whatever it was the Palestinians
would fly their flag over, it would not be a territory from which to
kill Israelis. Demilitarized. No weapons smuggling. Not like what is
happening today in Gaza.
OK, call it wishful
listening. To me he was saying that the kind of state the
Palestinians want is not on the table and not on the horizon.
As soon as the
speech was over I rushed to hear how French media would react.
State-owned France Info said Netanyahu accepts a Palestinian state
but it has to be demilitarized. Abbas, they report, says Netanyahu
torpedoed any hope of peace. He asked too much.
Well, that seemed like a
reasonable reaction from Abbas. It reassured me. Then I checked out
FoxNews. And then the Figaro: “Netanyahu accepts the principle of a
Palestinian state.” And finally, the Jerusalem Post. Our friend
Aryeh Eldad said it too. Netanyahu crossed the red line. All the
conditions he set forth will be forgotten, the only thing that will
be remembered is that he agreed on the principle of a Palestinian
state.
Can I still be happy?
Didn’t Bibi stand up to Obama? Everyone else is caving in.
Driveling. Drooling. And he lobbed those shots right back into
Obama’s court, one by one, like a pro. Everyone knows the
Palestinians don’t want a demilitarized state. So what does the
word “state” mean if, in fact, Netanyahu pronounced the word?
Obama makes the most
scandalous dhimmi speech ever pronounced in modern times and gets
praised all over the planet. Netanyahu answers him back without
pulling punches or picking a fight, and all you’ll hear is that he
agrees that the Palestinians should have a state.
I don’t think he did.
To be continued…
UPDATE: Here is the full text of Netanyahu's speech, via For Zion's Sake (hat tip Randall):
Honored guests, citizens of Israel.
Peace
has always been our people’s most ardent desire. Our prophets gave the
world the vision of peace, we greet one another with wishes of peace,
and our prayers conclude with the word peace.
We are gathered
this evening in an institution named for two pioneers of peace,
Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and we share in their vision.
Two
and half months ago, I took the oath of office as the Prime Minister of
Israel. I pledged to establish a national unity government – and I did.
I believed and I still believe that unity was essential for us now more
than ever as we face three immense challenges – the Iranian threat, the
economic crisis, and the advancement of peace.
The Iranian
threat looms large before us, as was further demonstrated yesterday.
The greatest danger confronting Israel, the Middle East, the entire
world and human race, is the nexus between radical Islam and nuclear
weapons. I discussed this issue with President Obama during my recent
visit to Washington, and I will raise it again in my meetings next week
with European leaders. For years, I have been working tirelessly to
forge an international alliance to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons.
Confronting a global economic crisis, the government
acted swiftly to stabilize Israel’s economy. We passed a two year
budget in the government – and the Knesset will soon approve it.
And
the third challenge, so exceedingly important, is the advancement of
peace. I also spoke about this with President Obama, and I fully
support the idea of a regional peace that he is leading.
I
share the President’s desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation
in our region. To this end, I met with President Mubarak in Egypt, and
King Abdullah in Jordan, to elicit the support of these leaders in
expanding the circle of peace in our region.
I turn to all Arab
leaders tonight and I say: “Let us meet. Let us speak of peace and let
us make peace. I am ready to meet with you at any time. I am willing to
go to Damascus, to Riyadh, to Beirut, to any place- including Jerusalem. I
call on the Arab countries to cooperate with the Palestinians and with
us to advance an economic peace. An economic peace is not a substitute
for a political peace, but an important element to achieving it.
Together, we can undertake projects to overcome the scarcities of our
region, like water desalination or to maximize its advantages, like
developing solar energy, or laying gas and petroleum lines, and
transportation links between Asia, Africa and Europe.
The
economic success of the Gulf States has impressed us all and it has
impressed me. I call on the talented entrepreneurs of the Arab world to
come and invest here and to assist the Palestinians – and us – in
spurring the economy.
Together, we can develop industrial areas
that will generate thousands of jobs and create tourist sites that will
attract millions of visitors eager to walk in the footsteps of history
– in Nazareth and in Bethlehem, around the walls of Jericho and the
walls of Jerusalem, on the banks of the Sea of Galilee and the
baptismal site of the Jordan. There is an enormous potential for archeological tourism, if we can only learn to cooperate and to develop it.
I turn to you, our Palestinian neighbors, led by the Palestinian Authority, and I say: Let’s begin negotiations immediately without preconditions. Israel is obligated by its international commitments and expects all parties to keep their commitments.
We
want to live with you in peace, as good neighbors. We want our children
and your children to never again experience war: that parents, brothers
and sisters will never again know the agony of losing loved ones in
battle; that our children will be able to dream of a better future and
realize that dream; and that together we will invest our energies in
plowshares and pruning hooks, not swords and spears.
I know the
face of war. I have experienced battle. I lost close friends, I lost a
brother. I have seen the pain of bereaved families. I do not want war.
No one in Israel wants war.
If we join hands and work together
for peace, there is no limit to the development and prosperity we can
achieve for our two peoples – in the economy, agriculture, trade,
tourism and education - most importantly, in providing our youth a
better world in which to live, a life full of tranquility, creativity,
opportunity and hope.
If the advantages of peace are so evident,
we must ask ourselves why peace remains so remote, even as our hand
remains outstretched to peace? Why has this conflict continued for more
than sixty years?
In order to bring an end to the conflict, we
must give an honest and forthright answer to the question: What is the
root of the conflict?
In his speech to the first Zionist
Conference in Basel, the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodore
Herzl, said about the Jewish national home “This idea is so big that we
must speak of it only in the simplest terms.” Today, I will speak about
the immense challenge of peace in the simplest words possible.
Even
as we look toward the horizon, we must be firmly connected to reality,
to the truth. And the simple truth is that the root of the conflict
was, and remains, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish
people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland.
In
1947, when the United Nations proposed the partition plan of a Jewish
state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the resolution.
The Jewish community, by contrast, welcomed it by dancing and rejoicing.
The Arabs rejected any Jewish state, in any borders.
Those
who think that the continued enmity toward Israel is a product of our
presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is confusing cause and consequence.
The
attacks against us began in the 1920s, escalated into a comprehensive
attack in 1948 with the declaration of Israel’s independence, continued
with the fedayeen attacks in the 1950s, and climaxed in 1967, on the
eve of the six-day war, in an attempt to tighten a noose around the
neck of the State of Israel.
All this occurred during the fifty years before a single Israeli soldier ever set foot in Judea and Samaria .
Fortunately,
Egypt and Jordan left this circle of enmity. The signing of peace
treaties have brought about an end to their claims against Israel, an
end to the conflict. But to our regret, this is not the case with the
Palestinians. The closer we get to an agreement with them, the further
they retreat and raise demands that are inconsistent with a true desire
to end the conflict.
Many good people have told us that
withdrawal from territories is the key to peace with the Palestinians.
Well, we withdrew. But the fact is that every withdrawal was met with
massive waves of terror, by suicide bombers and thousands of missiles.
We
tried to withdraw with an agreement and without an agreement. We tried
a partial withdrawal and a full withdrawal. In 2000 and again last
year, Israel proposed an almost total withdrawal in exchange for an end
to the conflict, and twice our offers were rejected.
We
evacuated every last inch of the Gaza strip, we uprooted tens of
settlements and evicted thousands of Israelis from their homes, and in
response, we received a hail of missiles on our cities, towns and
children.
The claim that territorial withdrawals will bring
peace with the Palestinians, or at least advance peace, has up till now
not stood the test of reality.
In addition to this, Hamas in the
south, like Hezbollah in the north, repeatedly proclaims their
commitment to “liberate” the Israeli cities of Ashkelon, Beersheba,
Acre and Haifa. Territorial withdrawals have not lessened the
hatred, and to our regret, Palestinian moderates are not yet ready to
say the simple words: Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people,
and it will stay that way.
Achieving peace will require courage and candor from both sides, and not only from the Israeli side. The
Palestinian leadership must arise and say: “Enough of this conflict. We
recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in
this land, and we are prepared to live beside you in true peace.” I
am yearning for that moment, for when Palestinian leaders say those
words to our people and to their people, then a path will be opened to
resolving all the problems between our peoples, no matter how complex
they may be.
Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for ending
the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian
recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. To
vest this declaration with practical meaning, there must also be a
clear understanding that the Palestinian refugee problem will be
resolved outside Israel’s borders. For it is clear that any demand for
resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel’s
continued existence as the state of the Jewish people.
The
Palestinian refugee problem must be solved, and it can be solved, as we
ourselves proved in a similar situation. Tiny Israel successfully
absorbed tens of thousands of Jewish refugees who left their homes and
belongings in Arab countries. Therefore, justice and logic demand
that the Palestinian refugee problem be solved outside Israel’s
borders. On this point, there is a broad national consensus. I believe
that with goodwill and international investment, this humanitarian
problem can be permanently resolved.
So far I have spoken
about the need for Palestinians to recognize our rights. In am moment,
I will speak openly about our need to recognize their rights. But
let me first say that the connection between the Jewish people and the
Land of Israel has lasted for more than 3500 years. Judea and Samaria,
the places where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and
Isaiah and Jeremiah lived, are not alien to us. This is the land of our
forefathers.
The right of the Jewish people to a state in the
land of Israel does not derive from the catastrophes that have plagued
our people. True, for 2000 years the Jewish people suffered expulsions,
pogroms, blood libels, and massacres which culminated in a Holocaust -
a suffering which has no parallel in human history. There are
those who say that if the Holocaust had not occurred, the state of
Israel would never have been established. But I say that if the state
of Israel would have been established earlier, the Holocaust would not
have occured. This tragic history of powerlessness explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defense. But
our right to build our sovereign state here, in the land of Israel,
arises from one simple fact: this is the homeland of the Jewish people,
this is where our identity was forged. As Israel’s first Prime
Minister David Ben-Gurion proclaimed in Israel’s Declaration of
Independence: “The Jewish people arose in the land of Israel and it was
here that its spiritual, religious and political character was shaped.
Here they attained their sovereignty, and here they bequeathed to the
world their national and cultural treasures, and the most eternal of
books.”
But we must also tell the truth in its entirety: within
this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to
rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to
impose either our flag or our culture on them.
In my vision of
peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely,
side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag,
its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the
security or survival of the other.
These two realities – our
connection to the land of Israel, and the Palestinian population living
within it – have created deep divisions in Israeli society. But the
truth is that we have much more that unites us than divides us. I
have come tonight to give expression to that unity, and to the
principles of peace and security on which there is broad agreement
within Israeli society. These are the principles that guide our policy.
This
policy must take into account the international situation that has
recently developed. We must recognize this reality and at the same time
stand firmly on those principles essential for Israel. I have
already stressed the first principle – recognition. Palestinians must
clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish
people. The second principle is: demilitarization. The territory under
Palestinian control must be demilitarized with ironclad security
provisions for Israel. Without these two conditions, there is a
real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would
become another terrorist base against the Jewish state, such as the one
in Gaza. We don’t want Kassam rockets on Petach Tikva, Grad rockets on Tel Aviv, or missiles on Ben-Gurion airport. We want peace.
In
order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be
able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to
close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of
Hezbollah and Iran. On this point as well, there is wide consensus
within Israel.
It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance
to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this
state will be demilitarized.
On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed.
Therefore,
today we ask our friends in the international community, led by the
United States, for what is critical to the security of Israel: Clear
commitments that in a future peace agreement, the territory controlled
by the Palestinians will be demilitarized: namely, without an army,
without control of its airspace, and with effective security measures
to prevent weapons smuggling into the territory – real monitoring, and
not what occurs in Gaza today. And obviously, the Palestinians will not
be able to forge military pacts.
Without this, sooner or later, these territories will become another Hamastan. And that we cannot accept.
I
told President Obama when I was in Washington that if we could agree on
the substance, then the terminology would not pose a problem. And here is the substance that I now state clearly:
If
we receive this guarantee regarding demilitirization and Israel’s
security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State
of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement
to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists
alongside the Jewish state.
Regarding the remaining important
issues that will be discussed as part of the final settlement, my
positions are known: Israel needs defensible borders, and Jerusalem
must remain the united capital of Israel with continued religious
freedom for all faiths.
The territorial question will be
discussed as part of the final peace agreement. In the meantime, we
have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating
additional land for existing settlements.
But there is a need to
enable the residents to live normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers
to raise their children like families elsewhere. The settlers are
neither the enemies of the people nor the enemies of peace. Rather,
they are an integral part of our people, a principled, pioneering and
Zionist public.
Unity among us is essential and will help us
achieve reconciliation with our neighbors. That reconciliation must
already begin by altering existing realities. I believe that a strong
Palestinian economy will strengthen peace.
If the
Palestinians turn toward peace – in fighting terror, in strengthening
governance and the rule of law, in educating their children for peace
and in stopping incitement against Israel - we will do our part in
making every effort to facilitate freedom of movement and access, and
to enable them to develop their economy. All of this will help us
advance a peace treaty between us.
Above all else, the
Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of
Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law
in Gaza and overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit at the negotiating
table with terrorists who seek their destruction. Hamas will not
even allow the Red Cross to visit our kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit,
who has spent three years in captivity, cut off from his parents, his
family and his people. We are committed to bringing him home, healthy
and safe.
With a Palestinian leadership committed to peace, with
the active participation of the Arab world, and the support of the
United States and the international community, there is no reason why
we cannot achieve a breakthrough to peace.
Our people have
already proven that we can do the impossible. Over the past 61 years,
while constantly defending our existence, we have performed wonders. Our
microchips are powering the world’s computers. Our medicines are
treating diseases once considered incurable. Our drip irrigation is
bringing arid lands back to life across the globe. And Israeli
scientists are expanding the boundaries of human knowledge. If only our neighbors would respond to our call – peace too will be in our reach.
I
call on the leaders of the Arab world and on the Palestinian
leadership, let us continue together on the path of Menahem Begin and
Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein. Let us realize the vision
of the prophet Isaiah, who in Jerusalem 2700 years ago said: “nations
shall not lift up sword against nation, and they shall learn war no
more.”
With God’s help, we will know no more war. We will know peace.
Ambassador John Bolton has penned an excellent analysis of the various outcomes in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran to take out their nukes. Hindsight is 20/20, but an democracy loving administration (Bush) would have been far more supportive than an anti-semitic one will ever be. Olmert did not have the testicular fortitude to save Israel from Islamic nukes. So now it's infinitely harder. So what? Everything for the poor beleagured Jew is infinitely harder -- but nothing was harder than Auschwitz. That is not going to happen again. Israel will not be turned into one giant oven.
What If Israel Strikes Iran? John Bolton, WSJ (hat tip Jane) The mullahs would retaliate. But things would be much worse if they had the bomb.
Excerpt:
5) Iran launches missile attacks on Israel. Because all the
foregoing options risk more direct U.S. involvement, Tehran will most likely
decide to retaliate against the actual attacker, Israel. Using its missile and
perhaps air force capabilities, Iran could do substantial damage in Israel,
especially to civilian targets. Of course, one can only imagine what Iran might
do once it has nuclear weapons, and this is part of the cost-benefit analysis
Israel must make before launching attacks in the first place. Direct Iranian
military action against Israel, however, would provoke an even broader Israeli
counterstrike, which at some point might well involve Israel's own nuclear
capability. Accordingly, Iran's Revolutionary Guards would have to think long
and hard before unleashing its own capabilities against Israel.
6) Iran unleashes Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel. By process of
elimination, but also because of strategic logic, Iran's most likely option is
retaliating through Hamas and Hezbollah. Increased terrorist attacks inside
Israel, military incursions by Hezbollah across the Blue Line, and, most
significantly, salvoes of missiles from both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip are all
possibilities. In plain violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, Iran
has not only completely re-equipped Hezbollah since the 2006 war with Israel,
but the longer reach of Hezbollah's rockets now endangers Israel's entire
civilian population. Moreover, Hamas's rocket capabilities could easily be
substantially enhanced to provide greater range and payload to strike throughout
Israel, creating a two-front challenge.
Risks to its civilian population will weigh heavily in any Israeli decision
to use force, and might well argue for simultaneous, pre-emptive attacks on
Hezbollah and Hamas in conjunction with a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Obviously, Israel will have to measure the current risks to its safety and
survival against the longer-term threat to its very existence once Iran acquires
nuclear weapons.
This brief survey demonstrates why Israel's military option against Iran's
nuclear program is so unattractive, but also why failing to act is even worse.
All these scenarios become infinitely more dangerous once Iran has deliverable
nuclear weapons. So does daily life in Israel, elsewhere in the region and
globally.
Many argue that Israeli military action will cause Iranians to rally in
support of the mullahs' regime and plunge the region into political chaos. To
the contrary, a strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could well turn
Iran's diverse population against an oppressive regime. Most of the Arab world's
leaders would welcome Israel solving the Iran nuclear problem, although they
certainly won't say so publicly and will rhetorically embrace Iran if Israel
strikes. But rhetoric from its Arab neighbors is the only quantum of solace Iran
will get.
On the other hand, the Obama administration's increased pressure on Israel
concerning the "two-state solution" and West Bank settlements demonstrates
Israel's growing distance from Washington. Although there is no profit now in
complaining that Israel should have struck during the Bush years, the missed
opportunity is palpable. For the remainder of Mr. Obama's term, uncertainty
about his administration's support for Israel will continue to dog Israeli
governments and complicate their calculations. Iran will see that as well, and
play it for all it's worth. This is yet another reason why Israel's risks and
dilemmas, difficult as they are, only increase with time.
Israel has one priority. One. Self-preservation. Period.
UPDATE: One thing I meant to mention but failed to do so. The Iranian elections. I hear the leftopaths putting great stock in the outcome of the elections in Iran. Balderdash!
First off, the mullahs are running the mahdi madhouse. So I do not think Ahmadinejad will win. In what can only be called political theater, some other plant will win, and they will con the world, the Perm 5, the UNSC, and the Muslim POTUS in one collective circle jerk while they finish their extensive, comprehensive nuclear weapons program. Not one nuke, not two nukes. Many nukes. The world wants so desperately to be fooled. Anything but react. And so the "new" Iranian President will "engage" in a "new era," "new dialogue," and "diplomacy," to Obama's evil delight.
The election is irrelevant. The objective does not change, nor has it, since the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in 1979.
The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident. -- Ayn Rand
Having studied the Quran all through his youth, Obama knows what the 10 year hudna rule is, and understands what Hamas is suggesting. The fact that he is covering for them, spreading the taqiyya and abetting jihad, is very worrisome for our free nation.
Here is yet another example of how Western analysts miss the significance of
what Islamic leaders are saying because they don't know Islamic doctrine and
don't understand how important it is to the jihadists. The very fact that the
leader of Hamas is offering a ten-year truce indicates that he hasn't changed a
bit, and will never accept the existence of Israel. He will only use such a
truce, if it is concluded, to work toward the total destruction of Israel.
"If Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the
Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with the Quraysh for
that long, as is related by Abu Dawud" ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.16).
Note that this can only be done if "Muslims are weak," so that they can
gather strength to fight again -- not so that they can live peacefully with
non-Muslims indefinitely. The same legal manual also quotes this verse of the
Qur'an: "So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are
the uppermost" (47:35). So Hamas would not be calling for a truce at all if it
felt it was in a position of strength. "Interests that justify making a truce
are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or
the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim . . ." ('Umdat al-Salik,
o9.16).
The bottom line: Hamas is feeling the heat and wants a truce in order to
regroup and emerge in a stronger position.
"Addressing U.S., Hamas Says It Grounded Rockets," by Taghreed El-Khodary and
Ethan Bronner for the New York Times, May 4 (thanks to all who sent this in):
DAMASCUS, Syria — The leader of the militant Palestinian group Hamas
said Monday that its fighters had stopped firing rockets at Israel for now. He
also reached out in a limited way to the Obama administration and others in the
West, saying the movement was seeking a state only in the areas Israel won in
1967.
“I promise the American administration and the international community that
we will be part of the solution, period,” the leader, Khaled Meshal, said during
a five-hour interview with The New York Times spread over two days in his home
office here in the Syrian capital.
Speaking in Arabic in a house heavily guarded by Syrian and Palestinian
security agents, Mr. Meshal, 53, gave off an air of serene self-confidence,
having been re-elected a fourth time to a four-year term as the leader of the
Hamas political bureau, the top position in the movement. His conciliation went
only so far, however. He repeated that he would not recognize Israel, saying to
fellow Arab leaders, “There is only one enemy in the region, and that is
Israel.”
But he urged outsiders to ignore the Hamas charter, which calls for the
obliteration of Israel through jihad and cites as fact the infamous anti-Semitic
forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Mr. Meshal did not offer
to revoke the charter, but said it was 20 years old, adding, “We are
shaped by our experiences.” [...]
On the two-state solution sought by the Americans, he said: “We are with a
state on the 1967 borders, based on a long-term truce. This includes East
Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and the right of return of the
Palestinian refugees.” Asked what “long-term” meant, he said 10 years....
Did Obama really think he fooled us with the seder crumbs he threw at the Jews during Passover holiday?
Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu on Sunday canceled his plans to attend the upcoming
AIPAC summit, after it became clear that US President Barack Obama
would not meet him during the conference.
Netanyahu announced that while he will not attend the conference in person, he will send a video-taped message to Washington.
Army Radio reported that the prime minister asked President Shimon Peres to represent Israel at the summit, scheduled to take place in Washington in the beginning of May. (story here)
Olmurderer ........... that's what he was. He damn near killed Israel. The Jews escaped this dangerous fool not by his disastrous performance but by his crooked petty thievery. Asshattery extraordinaire.
Dan Friedman writes, "In today's JPost, Caroline Glick gives petty thief and grand
failure, Ehud Olmert, a proper send off, pointing out he was not only the
first Israeli leader to lose a war, he was the first Israeli leader to lose
two wars. But in all fairness, what choice did Olmert have? Half his
country is dying to give the store away to the Arabs, and the other half is
hoping the Americans will do it for them. In that context, a clear, decisive
victory against Hamas or Hezbollah would mean eliminating one of the essential
players in the "peace process" - the Bad Cop - thereby exposing the Good Cop for
the terrorist he's always been. A conundrum Olmert's successor, Netanyahu, is
about to confront - in spades."
Netanyahu has got to stop courting the leftopaths and start saving the Jewish homeland.
JERUSALEM – Officials in Jerusalem are quietly scratching their heads in
wonderment as to why the White House did not release an official statement
condemning yesterday's bulldozer terrorist rampage here, the third attack of its
kind in recent months.
Two police officers were lightly wounded in Jerusalem when an Arab bulldozer
driver overturned their police car and drove it into a bus before being shot by
police and an armed taxi driver. The terrorist later died of his wounds in an
Israeli hospital.
The attack with a bulldozer came less than 18 hours after Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton strongly protested as "unhelpful" the planned bulldozing of more
than 80 Jerusalem Arab homes built illegally upon Jewish land in Jerusalem.
Usually, following any terrorist attack in Israel, the White House like
clockwork immediately releases an official statement condemning the attack. But
this time, no statement was forthcoming from either the White House or Clinton's
State Department.
Spencer: "But apparently the driver missed all the Qur'an's beautiful words of peace. How odd that that keeps happening."
"Jerusalem:
Bulldozer plows into police vehicle; terrorist killed," by Ronen
Medzini in Ynet News, March 5 (hat tip Jihadwatch):
A tractor plowed into a police squad car on Menachem Begin
Boulevard in Jerusalem on Thursday. The driver was apparently also
trying to hit a nearby bus, but missed.
Two police officers were in the car when it was hit and both
sustained mild injuries. Other police officers patrolling nearby shot
the terrorist....
"The officers shot the terrorist and neutralized him. Seconds later,
a cab driver who pulled over fired as well, as did another police
officer who arrived at the scene, and a force volunteer. The driver was
critically injured, taken off the tractor and rushed to a nearby
hospital, where he later died of his wounds. We found an open Quran
book in the driver's compartment."...
Meanwhile, Gaza's Hamas rulers praised Thursday's bulldozer attack
in Jerusalem as a "natural response" to Israel's demolition of
Palestinian homes in Arab east Jerusalem and to the Jewish state's
offensive in the Gaza Strip: "The operation in Jerusalem was a natural
response to aggression against our people. The Zionist enemy should
realize that they alone bear the responsibility for displacing our
people in Jerusalem and for the killings in Gaza and the West Bank,"
said Mushir al-Masri, a senior Hamas official....
Thursday's tractor attack is the third of its kind in the capital: July
of 2008 saw two such attacks – the first resulting in three people dead
and 30 injured and the second resulting in 18 people injured. In both
cases, the assailant was a resident of east Jerusalem....
JERUSALEM (AP) - Benjamin Netanyahu appealed to his moderate rivals Friday to
join him after the hard-liner was formally tapped to put together Israel's next
ruling coalition - an alliance that would dilute the power of nationalists bent
on derailing Mideast peace talks.
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, in a seeming about-face, indicated she might be
willing to come on board a Netanyahu government.
But Livni, a centrist, would certainly exact a high price: sharing the prime
minister's job she so fervently sought with a reluctant Netanyahu. Should he
balk, his alternative would be an unstable coalition of right-wingers sure to
collide with the Obama administration and its ambitious plans for ending 60
years of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
Netanyahu urged Livni of the governing Kadima Party and Defense Minister Ehud
Barak of the Labor Party to join his government.
"I call on the members of all the factions ... to set politics aside and put
the good of the nation at the center," Netanyahu said during a low-key ceremony
at the president's residence in Jerusalem.
Friday's decision by Israel's ceremonial president, Shimon Peres, to tap
Netanyahu ended days of speculation and gave Netanyahu six weeks to put together
a ruling coalition.
Peres had been meeting with political leaders as he decided which candidate
would be given the task of cobbling together a new coalition in the aftermath of
Israel's national election last week.
The choice of Netanyahu was cemented on Thursday when Avigdor Lieberman, who
heads the hawkish Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Our Home) party, endorsed him.
Lieberman's party, which based its campaign on requiring Israel's Arab
citizens to swear loyalty to the Jewish state or lose their citizenship, came in
third place in the Feb. 10 election, after Kadima and Netanyahu's Likud. That
essentially allowed him to determine whether Netanyahu or Livni would be able to
muster the backing of a majority in parliament.
Kadima edged out Likud in the election, capturing 28 seats to Likud's 27. But
Likud is in a better position to put together a coalition because of gains by
Lieberman and other hard-line parties.
Emerging from her meeting with Peres, Livni said she would not join a
hard-line government and was prepared to sit in the opposition "if necessary."
Good. Good-bye. Don't let the door hit you in the ace on the way out.
"I will not be able to serve as a cover for a lack of direction. I want to
lead Israel in a way I believe in, to advance a peace process based on two
states for two peoples," Livni said.
With Livni out, Netanyahu might have little choice but to forge a coalition
with nationalist and religious parties opposed to peacemaking with the
Palestinians and Israel's other Arab neighbors.
Peacemaking? Fancy word for Jew killing and Israel's destruction.
Netanyahu has said Israel must topple the Hamas government in Gaza and says
Israel halted the Gaza offensive too soon.
Caroline Glick, the clearest, most reasoned figure/thinker in Israel, gives us the bottom line on the Israel election: Enter the Netanyahu Government
During the campaign, Netanyahu said he wants to form a broad governing
coalition. Until Tuesday, he planned to bring the Labor Party led by Ehud Barak
into his government while leaving Kadima out in the cold. It was his hope that
as the odd man out, Kadima would be destroyed as a viable political entity.
The public, though, had other plans. On Tuesday, voters wiped out David
Ben-Gurion's party as a political force in the country. Labor's senior
leadership reacted to their defeat by declaring that the time has come to move
into the opposition. There will be no coalition with Labor.
That leaves Kadima. If Netanyahu wants a leftist party in his government, he
will need to bring in Kadima. Such a coalition would be based on a tripartite
partnership between the Likud, Kadima and Israel Beiteinu.
Although Netanyahu clearly prefers such a broad coalition, it is not his only
option. The other possibility is to form a government with his rightist
political camp. A coalition of the Likud, Israel Beiteinu, Shas, United Torah
Judaism, the National Union and Habayit Hayehudi would constitute a stable
governing majority that could withstand attempts by Kadima to bring down the
government in the Knesset.
THE QUESTION is which coalition is best for the Likud? The answer to that
question is debatable. But to begin to understand what should drive Netanyahu's
decision, it is necessary to recognize his top priorities in office.
Netanyahu has made clear that his top priorities are preventing Iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons, defeating Hamas and strengthening the economy.
Netanyahu's free market economic philosophy is shared by Kadima and Israel
Beiteinu. It is not shared by Shas or Habayit Hayehudi. The National Union is
neutral on this issue. So to cut income taxes by 20 percent, as Netanyahu has
pledged, a coalition with Kadima is preferable to its rightist alternative. On
the other hand, the fact of the matter is that Netanyahu will probably be able
to push his economic policies through the Knesset with either governing
coalition, particularly if he proposes them quickly.
This leaves the issue of Iran and its Hamas proxy in Gaza. Here the situation
becomes more complicated. In a conversation on Thursday morning, Likud MK Yuval
Steinitz argued in favor of a coalition with Kadima by noting that as the
Kadima-led government's wars in Gaza and Lebanon, and its destruction of the
Iranian-financed, North Korean built nuclear installation in Syria in September
2007 show, Kadima shares the Likud's willingness to use force against Israel's
enemies.
At the same time, Steinitz acknowledged that Kadima used force in both
Lebanon and Gaza to advance diplomatic aims that are diametrically opposed to
the Likud's diplomatic aims. In Lebanon, Livni was the architect of the
cease-fire with Hizbullah that paved the way for Hizbullah's rearmament,
reassertion of control over south Lebanon, and effective takeover of the
Lebanese government. In Gaza, the Kadima-led government is about to agree to a
cease-fire that will in the end strengthen Hamas's grip on power and legitimize
the terror group as a political force.
Moreover, unlike the Likud, Kadima has made establishing a Fatah-led
Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and Gaza its most urgent
strategic goal, followed only by its ardent desire to give Syria the Golan
Heights. The Likud opposes both of these goals.
In contrast to Kadima, the rightist parties in Netanyahu's voter-made
coalition share the Likud's philosophy both in terms of when to use force, and
in terms of the diplomatic aims the resort to force are supposed to achieve. The
rightist Knesset bloc would not agree to a cease-fire agreement in which Israel
is required to release a thousand terrorists, including mass murderers, from
prison. They would not agree to cease-fires that enable Hamas and Hizbullah to
continue to arm, control territory or attack Israel. They would not agree to a
national strategy that advocates subcontracting Israel's national security to
international forces. And they oppose transferring Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and
the Golan Heights to Arab control.
THE DISPARITY between Kadima's and the Likud's strategic goals makes a
rightist coalition seem like the best option. But there are reasons why an
observer could reasonably reach a different conclusion. The existential threats
Israel faces today from Iran and its proxies are exacerbated by the fact that
the West's position on Israel is swiftly converging with the Arab world's
position on Israel. Throughout Western Europe, elite opinion has swung against
the Jewish state. Today not only can Israel expect no support from Europe for
its moves to defend itself from its enemies, it can be all but certain that
Europe will actively seek to weaken it. The only question is what means Europe
chooses to adopt against Israel.
Presently, Europe suffices with threatening to prosecute Israeli military
personnel and political leaders as war criminals, levying partial embargos on
the sale of military equipment to Israel, supporting anti-Israel resolutions in
international forums, and refusing to end its trade with Iran. In the future,
the EU is liable to end its free trade agreements with Israel, seek Israel's
delegitimization as a "racist" state, and perhaps join Russia in supplying Arab
armies and Iran with advanced weapons and nuclear reactors.
As for the US, the Obama administration's interest in courting Teheran and
the Arab world place Jerusalem on a collision course with Washington. Given the
high priority the Obama administration has placed on appeasing Iran, its
decision to end US sanctions against Syria, and its intense desire to establish
a Palestinian state, it is fairly clear that Israel cannot expect to enjoy good
relations with Washington in the coming years without adopting policies that
would endanger its survival.
It is common wisdom in Israel that the Israeli Left is capable of limiting
the level of hostility directed against Israel from the US and Europe. Livni
exploited this popular belief during the electoral campaign when she warned that
a rightist government would destroy Israel's relations with Washington.
Apparently convinced by her warnings, some voices in the Likud argue that with
Livni and Kadima in the government, the US and the EU will think twice before
adopting openly hostile policies.
Unfortunately, this view is demonstrably false. As foreign minister in Ariel
Sharon's government during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, Shimon Peres did
not prevent the international Left in Europe and the US from accusing Israel of
committing war crimes. The Kadima-led leftist government was unable to secure
European support for Israel in the Second Lebanon War. The fact that Israel was
led by the leftist Kadima-Labor government during the wars in Lebanon and Gaza
did not improve the West's negative reaction to the fighting.
The generally ignored truth is that international hostility toward Israel is
driven by factors extraneous to Israel. Consequently, Israel's governments have
little ability to influence how foreign governments treat it, regardless of who
forms those governments.
There is one intrinsic advantage that leftist parties bring to rightist-led
coalitions. Leftist parties are capable of mobilizing the support of the
domestic leftist elites for the government's actions.
[...]
IN SHORT, given their disparate strategic goals, as a senior coalition
partner, Kadima can only be relied upon to support Netanyahu in implementing a
limited set of policies. As Netanyahu considers his options for forming a
coalition, he needs to answer four questions:
First, can Kadima's cooperation be assured in the event that the government
decides to attack Iran's nuclear facilities?
Second, will having Kadima in the government bring Israel significantly more
leverage with the Americans in the run up to or the aftermath of such a strike
than not having it in the government?
Third, will the Likud be weakened more if Livni attempts to advance her
Palestinian policy from within the government or from outside it?
And finally, as the Likud's senior coalition partner, will the damage Kadima
causes the Likud through its devotion to Palestinian statehood and willingness
to transfer the Golan Heights to Syria outweigh the advantage gained by its
partnership in attacking Iran?
How Netanyahu answers these questions should determine the nature of his
governing coalition
Essentially, the exit polls (which are notoriously inaccurate and tend towards the left here), show that the right-wing won the elections and the left-wing lost. But they also show that the public has little faith in Binyamin Netanyahu. Moreover, they show that Tzipi Livni ran the race of a lifetime and will have the capacity to make life difficult for Netanyahu.
Netanyahu will be the next prime minister.
Tzipi Livni of the Kadima party and Binyamin Netanyahu of the Likud party (Israel's largest party) are neck and neck in the final tallies of the Israel election, with a slight lead to lefty Livni. Netanyahu blew it. I say this because while the Livni/Netanyahu race may be very close - the right won the night. Big time.
With 99.7 percent of the votes counted, Kadima was
narrowly leading Likud with a predicted 28 mandates, while the latter
had garnered a predicted 27 seats. Israel Beiteinu was expected to earn
15 mandates, Labor 13, Shas 11, United Arab List four, United Torah
Judaism five, National Union four, Hadash four, Meretz three, Bayit
Hayehudi three, and Balad three.(here)
Because the Israeli election is so close - and not configured the way
the American elections are (not even remotely) - they have a complicated situation. The bottom line is the right won big. And a coalition government must be built.
The surprise winner was Avigdor Lieberman.
We've turned into a significant party, the third
largest in Israel," Lieberman told cheering supporters. "It's true that
Tzipi Livni won a surprise victory. But what is more important is that
the right-wing camp won a clear majority... We want a right-wing
government. That's our wish and we don't hide it.
Israel Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman will back a Likud-led coalition, so Netanyahu will be Prime Minister, but it's important to understand the man who holds the keys to the kingdom.Over at J Post:
Lieberman is also seeking to be appointed to a
senior cabinet position, such as defense minister or finance minister,
wants Daniel Friedmann retained as justice minister, is strongly
advocating electoral reform and wants the next coalition committed to
toppling Hamas in Gaza. But those demands are not an absolute
precondition for him backing Netanyahu in the wake of Tuesday's
election, it is understood, and neither is a pledge of progress on
other key Israel Beiteinu policies including enacting a loyalty oath.
If his demands for easing the conversion process and
instituting civil registration for couples who cannot get married by
Orthodox law are not met, however, Lieberman is emphatically prepared
to ally his party with Kadima instead. Those two demands are regarded
as crucial to the party's credibility with its voters.
When asked about serving in a government together with
Lieberman following a meeting with Netanyahu at the Knesset on
Wednesday, Shas chairman Eli Yishai said that "more extreme
partnerships had been made," and Shas leaders insisted that suggestions
that the party's spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef had branded
Lieberman "Satan" were inaccurate.
It certainly sends a message to anti-semitic Muslims in Gaza and the Islamic world that Israel will not sit idly by while Islamic jihad picks off Jews in lone jihad attacks or shells the north and south of Israel. And that is a very good thing.
Take a look at what Israel voted for. Anyone who tells you the ideological race is close ...is not even.... close.
Back in December 2006 I met with and covered a MEF event with the real winner in this year's election, the kingmaker Lieberman here. So who is Lieberman?
The unfaithful cannot be citizens.Avigdor Lieberman
Daniel Pipes hosted a Middle East Forum lunch
earlier today in NYC with Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs and
Deputy Prime Minister Avignor Lieberman which I was most privileged to
attend. Founder of the Yisrael
Beiteinu,
holding 11 of the 120 seats in the Israeli Parliament, it is the 5th
largest party in Israel. Second most popular political figure (Bibi
Netanyahu leads), he is right of center -- the opposite of the weak,
appeaser Olmert. More curious than anything else was I of how Lieberman could sanction the policies of the
feckless Olmert government by being a part of it?
Photo right: Avignor and Atlas
I respect Lieberman. Canceling a planned appearance at the Public Relations Council in New
York because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had spoken there two
months before was righteous indeed. I respect such action.
Lieberman's ministerial position deals primarily with the threat of
Iran's developing nuclear program. And he insists that this is why he
joined Olmert 's government -- to address the greatest threat
confronting Israel.
“Ahmadinejad is not a rational
player,” “Any attempt to pacify him is like before the second World War in Europe.”
He began his remarks by saying that those who are not faithful to Israel cannot expect to have full rights. He
would have Israelis to sign a commitment to loyalty to the Israeli
flag and to its national anthem, and of requiring service in the army
or other national service. Citizens who wouldn't sign the declaration
could continue to live in Israel, working, studying, and getting health
care benefits, but they could not vote in national elections or be
elected to national office.
“It’s not racism. The test is loyalty, not their religion.”
He said he would also deny Israeli citizenship to
extreme anti-Zionist Orthodox Jewish groups, specifically pointing to
Neturei Karta, which sent representatives to this week’s Holocaust
denial conference in Tehran.
Lieberman presented his solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict
"Israel
has the right to demand full allegiance from all its citizens. He who
is not ready to recognize Israel as a Jewish and Zionist state, cannot
be a citizen in the country. Of course, this is TREASON This applies to
extremists of the Neturei Karta [anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews -Atlas] as well as to extremist factions of the Islamic Movement."
The kingmaker, Lieberman, is no stranger to Atlas readers. Back in 2006 I reported that
Israel creates new ministry to deal with Iran threat JERUSALEM (AFP) - The
Israeli government has approved the creation of a new ministry for
strategic affairs, to be headed by a controversial ultra-nationalist
and deal mainly with Iran's nuclear ambitions.
During the weekly cabinet meeting, "all the ministers approved the
decision to form the ministry for strategic affairs" under Avigdor
Lieberman, whose Yisrael Beitenu party joined Prime Minister's Ehud
Olmert's government in October, a official said on condition of
anonymity on Sunday.
The ministry will be responsible "for coordination between
the different bodies regarding the different strategic threats
Israel is facing," most notably Iran's nuclear programme, which the
Jewish state and the United States believe is aimed at acquiring a
nuclear bomb, despite Tehran's denials.
Israel -- widely considered the Middle East's sole, if undeclared,
nuclear weapons power -- considers Iran its chief threat, pointing to
calls from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the Jewish state to be
wiped off the map.
UPDATE II: The results are depressing and contradictory. It was a huge win for Livni and a stunning defeat for Netanyahu. But Israeli politics are complicated, and the bottom line is -- it was a collective win for the Likud, so it looks like Netanyahu will form the next government. We have to wait to see the actual results. Because as in America, the exit pollsters are leftarded and in the tank for Livni.
It's a coalition thing. I understand Lieberman said he is supporting Netanyahu, so that
is that. Bibi should be the next prime minister.
UPDATE: "According to Channel 1, the right-wing bloc won 63 Knesset seats and the left wing 57; Channel 2 predicted 64 for the right and 56 for the left; and Channel 10 predicted 63 and 57 like Channel 1."
(IsraelNN.com)
Voting booths for Israel's national elections close at 10 p.m. Tuesday.
All night English TV coverage is presented below from
IsraelNationalNews' Petach Tivka studios. Broadcast will extend until
at least 3 a.m. Israel time (8 PM Eastern Standard Time).
Click here for up-to-the-minute elections results Click the Play button below the screen to tune into the live election coverage Update: 9:48 p.m.: The LIve Broadcast will be back up in a few minutes
This is the go-to site for the Israeli elections - Likud is leading at 28 percent, but Kadima is breathing down their neck with 25% - unthinkable. But then again, we voted Obama in, so who am I to talk, right?
Perhaps this is why Israel chose to defend itself today against Hamas's recent attacks. Pretend cojones for the election.
"You are a wonderful fighter for liberty" -- Bat Ye'or
"Well, I read Atlas Shrugs, Power Line, National Review blogs" ........ "Atlas Shrugs breaks more news than dozens of liberal blogs combined." ...... ... Ambassador John Bolton
"I'm a fan!" - Mark Steyn
"Fearless, intelligent, beautiful --- Pamela Geller wears her Supergirl
costume well."
"Pamela Geller is a dynamo of energy and
a paragon of courage and fearlessness.
--Robert Spencer, JihadWatch in his book Stealth Jihad
"You do great work. You are a hero". -- Geert Wilders, Dutch MP
"You are my hero!" -- Wafa Sultan, Former Muslim, Author human rights activist
"Hot female host with a good sense of humor based in NYC? I nominate Pamela."-- Michelle Malkin
"An American and Jewish national treasure." -- Steven Goldberg, National Vice Chair, ZOA
"A nationally recognized authority on the threat of radical Islam" -- Rep. Steven King (R-IA)
Pamela is one of the nation's most vigorous opponents of bigoted violence.- John Hinderaker, Powerline
" "A beautiful and articulate speaker and writer who has risen to prominence in the US for her steadfast commitment to exposing the deadly pathologies of Jew hatred, misogyny and other prejudices inherent to jihadist ideology." -- Caroline Glick" -- Caroline Glick
"I honestly think that one day historians will write about the defense of Western values and virtues in the 21st Century and speak of heroes. And one will be Pamela Geller." Michael Coren, TV host, Sun TV
"I'm cheering you on!" -- Amanda Carpenter
"Great site," Dick Morris
"A brash New Yorker and an irrepressible firebrand" -- Robert Tracinski, The Freedom Fighter's Journal and The Intellectual Activist
"Indeed, some of Israel's best friends and most articulate defenders can be found in the blogosphere .... Atlas Shrugs, [et al] all provide a refreshing alternative to the moral relativism and politically correct anti-Israel blather of the media. Michael Freund, Jerusalem Post
"She does more in one week than most of us do in a frickin' lifetime -- Pamela Geller!" -- Jaz McKay, Talk Radio KNZR
"Influential online fanatic" --- Max Blumenthal, Writer, Al Jazeera and The Nation
"I never go to MSM for news. Atlas is where I go. I am amazed at all that is happening, that only Atlas readers know about"". --- JCL, Atlas reader
"The heroine of the right wing blogosphere. 'We’re all Pamela Geller now!'” -- Charles Johnson, mental patient
“Geller had joined Stop the Madrassa and blogged often about the matter on her website, Atlas Shrugs. Blessed with sultry Hollywood sex appeal and a sassy, scythe-like wit — a personable Ann Coulter and articulate Sarah Palin rolled into one — Geller would ride the Park51 project protest to superstardom.”
- Southern Poverty Law Center
"Pamela Geller is one of the most polarizing women in the country."
Village Voice
"Pamela Geller's writings, rallies and television appearances have both offended and inspired, transforming Ms. Geller from an Internet obscurity, who once videotaped herself in a bikini as she denounced “Islamofascism,” into a media commodity who has been profiled on “60 Minutes” and whose phraseology has been adopted by Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin." The New York Times
"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world, these people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas." Heidi Beirich, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project
"I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline. Particularly when one can't see the details. Just the shapes. The shapes and the thought that made them. The sky over New York and the will of man made visible. What other religion do we need? And then people tell me about pilgrimages to some dank pesthole in a jungle where they go to do homage to a crumbling temple, to a leering stone monster with a pot belly, created by some leprous savage. Is it beauty and genius they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them come to New York, stand on the shore of the Hudson, look and kneel. When I see the city from my window - no, I don't feel how small I am - but I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body." Ayn Rand
Disclaimer: All comments are welcome on this website but the views expressed and any links provided in the comment sections are the personal views of individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect my views.
Thank you for visiting.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe a post on this website falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use” and legitimately infringes on yours or your clients copyright I may be contacted concerning copyright matters at:
If you require a courier address please send an email and I will provide you with the required information.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation I will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question. It is my strict policy to disable access to accounts of repeat copyright violators. I will also ban the IP address of repeat offenders from future posting on this website with or without a registered account.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. AtlasShrugs.com makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.
—–
DON’T BREAK THE LAW!
—–
Other than that you can do / say whatever you want on this forum.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at anytime.
