A Question for Netanyahu

The election results were a ray of hope and promise for many in the Zionist communities. But there is a question which must be asked of Netanyahu because if there is any chance that his intended direction has been indicated by bringing Livni into the coalition while also acquiescing to her every demand; then the Zionist should stop any celebrations and begin to worry that another Likud Prime Minister is headed to the dark side. What would be the indications that Netanyahu intends to fall before the pressures from the Europeans, United States President Obama backed by his recent appointees to be CIA Chief and Secretaries of State and Defense, the numerous leftist NGOs and the rest of the world support groups backing the Palestinian ploy by the Arab and Muslim world to destroy Israel?

It truly was a shocking revelation to read that Prime Minister Netanyahu has accepted Tzipi Livni into the coalition and agreed to grant her the Justice Ministry which was the expressed position sought by Yair Lapid and also granted her request to be the lead in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority as her position supporting surrendering most if not all of Judea and Samaria along with half of Jerusalem including all of the Old City as well as the Kotel which would make it next to impossible for Naftali Bennett and the Jewish Home to also enter such a coalition. The first question that comes to mind is how Netanyahu could form a coalition without compromising his promises to Livni. The first sign of the unthinkable may have been occurring right before our eyes as Netanyahu appears to be spending great amounts of time wooing Shelly Yachimovich and the Labor Party to join his coalition. Should Netanyahu succeed in his wooing of Yachimovich and the Labor Party he would be well on his way to forming that both sides of center coalition which has been the center of much chatter since the election. This would also fit in with the rumors that Netanyahu will go to whatever length is necessary to keep Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett out of the coalition. I know, how could Netanyahu fill out the rest of the needed Knesset seats to reach the minimum of sixty-one seats as even with Kadima along with Labor Party, Hatnuah and Likud-Beiteinu only gives him fifty-four?

That is where the unusual leadership by triumvirate of Shas comes into play. Despite the story fed to the media and membership of Shas that the three members of the triumvirate, Eli Yishai, Ariel Atias and Aryeh Deri, were equal and were working together there will always be the suspicion that not all members are truly equal. The truth is that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef as the spiritual guiding light is the true and undisputed true leader of Shas and he was the one who decided upon the triumvirate form of leadership in order to soften the inclusion of Aryeh Deri back into a leadership position immediately after he returned to politics after his conviction. This would likely mean that anything which Aryeh Deri decides for Shas will be supported by Rabbi Yosef and thus nobody would ever think to counter his decisions. Deri was well known to prefer Labor over Likud though he would ally with whichever was necessary to gain considerations for the Hasidic heart of Shas. It is this flexibility; some might say pragmatism, which has made Shas the coalition builder in Israeli history. Should Shas also join the above parties in a coalition, then Netanyahu would have his broad based coalition with sixty-five seats. The guarantor that this is Netanyahu’s desired outcome would be some generous deal made with Shelly Yachimovich in order to bring Labor into the coalition over her original denial of any possibility of her being in a coalition with Netanyahu.

 
Should this actually come to pass, then there are some additional questions which would soon surface. One of the foremost among them is what will Netanyahu do to keep such a coalition together with a number of his fellow Likud members probably having misgivings about their fellow coalition members? With Moshe Feiglin and Tzipi Hotovely and other Zionist and nationalist members within the Likud faction, how does Prime Minister Netanyahu expect to hold his coalition together and avoid losing a sure to follow vote of no confidence. Such would most certainly come attached to some piece of legislation made to satisfy either Tzipi Livni or Shelly Yachimovich or members of their parties by one of the parties not within the coalition, especially should such legislation either be detrimental to the Israelis residing in Judea and Samaria or other controversial subjects. Would Prime Minister Netanyahu purposely hold the members of the coalition to vote for anything which was brought before the Knesset by any coalition member? On the other hand, would Prime Minister Netanyahu deny members of the coalition bringing any motion which might challenge the coalition? And if either were the case, how would such a move be enforced? Would the coalition survive if Prime Minister Netanyahu challenged one of the other party leaders to hold their members to vote with the coalition or be removed from the Knesset and replaced with another minister appointed in order to enforce compliant voting? Would Prime Minister Netanyahu replace members of his own Likud Party in order to sustain his coalition? What would be the result from either of these actions? Such a coalition even if formed would appear on face value unsustainable. This may be conjecture but the possibility that Prime Minister Netanyahu may be headed in this direction is possible. This becomes even more likely if Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid hold to their agreement not to enter the coalition without the other, an agreement I believe both will truly honor despite what some, including Netanyahu, may think or even be counting on.

Beyond the Cusp

Benghazi and Gaza Reveal Government Spin Over Action

In the United States the public is being slowly traumatized by the horrors slowly coming to light as the putrefied onion that is Benghazi, Libya is slowly peeled one rotting later after another while in Israel there is the escalation by the terror governance in Gaza of rockets being hurled across the border at civilians and often timed to strike while children are transiting to or from school thus traumatizing the millions within the ever increasing range of these explosive projectiles. In both countries the government in general and the leadership in particular; President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, United Nations Ambassador Rice and others in the Administration in America and Prime Minister Netanyahu and the military and coalition leadership in Israel; are dodging responsibility and avoiding directly addressing the truth in a futile hope that neither problem will have any defining affect upon the upcoming elections. The similarities in both of these horrid and tragic instances go further than simply the attempt to wish them away by each nation’s leaders, they also have similar solutions which are based on honestly admitting some painful truths, taking responsibility for protecting the people and interests of the nation, giving an honest and complete assessment of the realities each nation faces, admission of mistakes and shortcomings committed by those in the positions of leadership and decision making, and finally refusal to take bold steps that would protect those in harm’s way and use necessary military steps that would prevent any further damages and show an understanding and consideration for protecting those who stand vulnerable from these threats.

The United States leadership needs to admit that it is very possible and even likely that the changes brought on by the so-called Arab Spring are more likely to result in situations less favorable to the West, freedom, liberties and even the economies of the nations where the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist entities have taken over the governance and are going to resemble an Arab Winter and relations are going to turn colder, not warmer. This places our personnel in the embassies, consulates, and other assets in greater threats of danger either directly from the new governance or from other terror-like threats acting with the permission of the governments if not directly being organized by these governments. It will not only be unwise to allow for security to be provided by the governments of the countries in which there are personnel and must insist on having United States Marines on duty guarding these people or should let it be known that American personnel will be pulled if forced to do so as well as financial and other consequences. Niceties cannot be extended if they will result in the death or threats of violence to American personnel. There are times when niceties must be put aside and putting forth a steel gloved hand becomes necessary instead of a white silk glove that President Obama appears to believe will solve everything. Reality is often not as pretty and in this case is extremely unseemly and ugly, but the truth is the truth.

Meanwhile, in southern Israel there have been close to one hundred rockets, mortars, bombs and other attacks originating from the Gaza Strip in less than one week. While the Iron Dome system protecting the city of Ashkelon has been of adequate success by intercepting at least eight rockets fired in its theater, there are simply not sufficient Iron Dome systems to protect all of the communities. There have been mounting casualties and an even larger number of people suffering stress and other nervous attacks and disorders as a result of this seeming declaration of war. If this many explosive rockets and mortars had been fired across a border into any country in the world other than Israel, the United Nations would be holding emergency sessions and there would be world-wide concern and denunciations against the senseless violence and provocations. Of course, since these attacks are against Israel there will be no fury of concern, hand-wringing and denouncements unless and until Israel should retaliate with any appropriate force which will be labeled as disproportionate as is the custom of the world in its current state of affairs. But just because the rest of the world will likely get their panties in a wad should Israel launch a ground attack that is carefully planned and executed sweeping through the entire length and breadth of the Gaza Strip searching every single building, shed, hospital, and mosque for rockets, mortars, rocket launchers, mortar launch tubes and any other such equipment of war and confiscate and destroy every single piece found does not preclude the possible necessity for just such an action. There should also be arrests of every leading terrorist and the rocket, mortar, bomb and explosive expert should be arrested or taken as prisoners of war to be released once all violence originating from the Gaza Strip has ceased for twelve straight months and a treaty negotiated. It may even have reached the point in time where returning IDF forces into the Gaza Strip to patrol the area and keep the peace has become a desirable and necessary option. Simply promising to reinforce the homes, businesses, hospitals, schools, malls, and other buildings to make them better able to withstand the rocket attacks is insufficient, irresponsible and completely inadequate. Election or no election in the offing, protecting the people of Israel is job one Mr. Netanyahu, not the strengthening of your coalition in the Knesset. What may not be obvious to you is that by assuring the safety and security of the people you also assure the size and loyalty of your coalition in the Knesset.

In both the United States and Israel there will be elections within a few months. The United States will have their election within fourteen days and may very well end up a referendum not only on President Obama’s performance in his first term, Obama Care, the economy, or any of the other items the American people have been fed for the whole election year thus far, it may well be a referendum on Benghazi and who will most likely keep the American people safe and the United States strong and respected with a sufficient dose of feared that nobody would ever consider attacking Americans anywhere in the world. In Israel the election might be a referendum on the authenticity of a return as an innocent man into politics by Ehud Olmert, or the return of Tzipi Livni. What should be the issues are a leader who will put the final nails to seal the coffin where the Oslo accords have been laid for some time by Mahmoud Abbas and his refusal to compromise or even discuss compromise, protection of the citizens living under constant threat in southern Israel from the rockets, mortars and other attacks originating from the Gaza Strip under the direction of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and related terror groups, the acceptance and application of the Levy Report along with all it implies, and stand firm before the hatreds and bigotries of too much of this world and establish that Israel is entitled to every millimeter of lands guaranteed under the numerous agreements including but not limited to the Peel Commission, San Remo Conference, Churchill White Papers, and Article 80 of the United Nations. The other way in which the United States and Israel are facing a similar situation is the possibility that the upcoming election in each country could have an effect on the entirety of each country’s future beyond what anyone can anticipate. Act One in two weeks and Act Two scheduled for late January of next year. The time between these two important dates should prove interesting, especially on how the results of the first could have influences on the second. These surely are interesting times but as such, are these a good thing or a curse as the Chinese believe.

Beyond the Cusp

Obama Administration’s Strange Support for Israel

It was early last week that President Obama boldly took the stand that his administration supported Israel far above and beyond any previous President’s administration by any measure. To a group of prominent Jews at the Upper East Side home of Jack Rosen, a prominent businessman and chairman of the American Jewish Congress, President Obama was quoted as saying, “We don’t compromise when it comes to Israel’s security.” Taking this as a valid statement about President Obama and those top people he has chosen to make up his administration, let’s look and see how they have supported this position in just the recent past; this should be an eye opening and informative glimpse inside this administration.

Topping the supporting Israel theme from the Administration of President Obama is none other than former CIA Chief and present Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta who was quoted by Al Jazeera English as saying, “The problem right now is we can’t get them [Israeli negotiators] to the damn table to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences. We understand the concerns of Israel; we understand the concerns of the Palestinians. If they sit at a table and work through those concerns and the United States can be of assistance in that process, then I think you have the beginning of what could be a process that could lead to a peace agreement. But if they aren’t there, if they aren’t at the table, this will never happen. So first and foremost get to the damn table.” Secretary Panetta suggested rather firmly, some might say insisted, that Israel make what concessions that may be required in order to return to the direct negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. Such a demand coming from President Obama’s Secretary of Defense will be taken by the Palestinian leadership that they can now make demands to their heart’s desire and the United States will force Israel to surrender completely. The problem with Secretary Panetta’s demands is that Israel has already fully agreed with the Quartet’s demands for resumption of negotiations without any preconditions while the Palestinians have demanded preconditions which would have Israel agreeing to acquiesce to every Palestinian negotiation position before negotiations even begin. In the simplest of terms, the Palestinian Authority does not wish to hold actual negotiations where there would be give and take with both sides having to surrender demands in order to expect the other side to give in on other points. The Palestinians want all issues to be decided before negotiations and to simply hold an Israeli surrender signing ceremony in lieu of actual negotiations. Apparently, the Obama Administration is in full agreement with demanding a total Israeli surrender.

Meanwhile, United States Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman, speaking at a conference on how to combat anti-Semitism, attended by Jewish lawyers, last week stated, “A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.” Such statements blaming Israel for fueling anti-Semitism because of the standoff with the Palestinian Authority are not only hateful and baseless; they are cruel and soaked in anti-Semitism. The White House immediately issued a rejection distancing themselves from the Ambassador’s remarks claiming, “We condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. There is never any justification for prejudice against the Jewish people or Israel.” When looking at the history of statements and positions made by the Obama Administration and the State Department in particular, they seem to be completely in line with Ambassador Gutman’s position that reaching a peace pact with the Palestinian Authority will reduce anti-Semitism. Gutman helped raised half a million dollars for President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008. This stands in stark contrast with the historic fact that both the Arab and Muslim Worlds have had a record of anti-Semitism reaching back over 1,500 years at varying times throughout the regions of their rule. This has gone as far as forcing Jews to wear special markings on their clothing such as a Yellow Star of David or other distinction starting as early as the 9th century by the Caliph in Baghdad. This practice was copied in areas throughout both the Muslim and Christian lands and was not initiated by the Nazis; they were simply the last ruling powers to use such a distinction, though I would expect that this very well may change in the near future.

The final nail in the coffin of how positively the Obama Administration works to protect and further Israeli positions comes from none other than Secretary of State Clinton. It must be noted that Clinton believed her remarks made in a closed forum would not be repeated or reported on and that all would remain within the hall in which she spoke. Apart from being extremely naive, this also gives a weight to her words as being a truthful representation of the thoughts she holds within her sole and would never reveal publically. To this commentator, her believing this was an off-the-record private conversation to a closed group only makes her hurtful language all the sharper and more critical than any “official” statement she could ever make. She had comments that spanned both domestic and foreign policies of the State of Israel and the members of the ruling coalition, especially Prime Minister Netanyahu. Let us first look at her comments on what is so wrong with Israeli domestic policies and where Ms. Clinton feels Israel comes up short.

Secretary of State Clinton had a main theme as she addressed Israeli domestic policies and agenda. She repeatedly stressed that Israel was becoming “anti-democratic” in many and various ways. Among the list of sins was that Israel had proposed limits on foreign funding of local NGOs such that NGOs would be limited in the amount of foreign funding they could receive by percentage in order to assure that Israeli NGOs operating within Israel would actually represent Israeli interests and not be paid domestic saboteurs for the European Union, various European governments, or foreign NGOs and private monies. Clinton also claimed that Israel was hurtful to women and was setting up discriminatory systems against women such as in busses used mainly by Hareidim religious passengers who prefer separate seating for men and women as a matter of modesty. This is restricted to a few bus lines and the arrangement is voluntary and not a legal issue, it is simply customs in a very local set of areas and not generally practiced throughout much of Israel. Her commenting, “It’s reminiscent of Rosa Parks,” was completely going overboard and completely inaccurate. Secretary Clinton was also bothered by the fact that Hareidim religious soldiers can be excused from IDF events in which a woman is singing, another voluntary allowance taken to further religious freedom and recognizing the strict laws of modesty when performed in mixed company observed by some religious Israelis. One must wonder how Secretary Clinton would react if this was Muslim soldiers being excused from watching a performance which was against their particular sect of Islam. Would this also be so horrible? This practice does not prevent having women sing at events held to entertain the soldiers and is no different than what the military of the United States does when providing Kosher and Halal meals for Jewish and Muslim soldiers in their military. Perhaps Ms. Clinton is adverse to religious accommodations by Israel or possibly everyone.

Secretary Clinton also had some points of contention about Israeli foreign policies and a particular objection to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision making processes. She reprimanded Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu claiming he had been wrong when he refused to apologize for the deaths of nine Turkish nationals onboard the Mavi Marmara during the Gaza flotilla in May of 2010. She pointed out that Turkey responded by downgrading its diplomatic ties with Israel that cost Israel the profits which could have been gained from continuing the strategic alliance with Turkey. Apparently, Ms. Clinton must believe that Israel would base decisions on how much money they will gain or lose and not stand up for ideals and actually take an honest and principled stand when it may cut into profits. She also pressed that Israel needs to take necessary actions in order to restart direct negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. She was not as blunt as Secretary Panetta had been in his statements a day earlier, but perhaps by following his performance she did not feel she needed to repeat his threats.

The sum of these statements from the varied sources in the Obama administration belie the statement that this administration has done more for Israel than any administration in the history of the United States. Maybe President Obama simply chose his words poorly or his teleprompter died again and he was supposed to claim that his administration had done more to Israel, not for Israel. Taking these recent comments, the treatment of Prime Minister Netanyahu during his visits to the United States, the treatment of other members of this Israeli government by officials of the administration, and the policies enacted by President Obama all into consideration and one can only honestly conclude that perhaps Israel is not at the top of President Obama’s friends list. Of course, this was made evident very early in the Obama Presidency when he made his very first phone call in the Oval Office after being sworn into office and called none other than Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Then again, maybe he was simply going through his rolodex in alphabetical order.

Beyond the Cusp