Just days after construction of Amichai began in Samaria, left-wing NGO goes to court to block new town's establishment.
David Rosenberg, of INN
No credit
A far-left NGO has turned to the Israeli Supreme Court to block the construction of a new town in Samaria – Amichai – to replace Amona, following its evacuation and demolition in February.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced on his Facebook page that work had finally begun on Amichai – half a year after the government agreed to build the replacement town for evacuated Amona residents.
“Today, work has begun on the ground, as I promised, for the establishment of a new town for the residents of Amona. I have the merit of being the Prime Minister to build the first new town in Judea and Samaria after decades [of no new towns being authorized].”
Amichai, which is being built in the Shiloh bloc in Samaria, will house the 42 families evacuated from Amona on February 1st.
Earlier this month, the Civil Administration authorized the new town, making Amichai the first new officially sanctioned Jewish town in Judea and Samaria in a quarter century, since the Rabin government imposed a freeze on new towns in 1992.
But on Thursday, the radical left-wing Yesh Din organization filed an urgent appeal with the Supreme Court, calling for work on Amichai to be suspended, NRG reported.
According to the Yesh Din appeal, the Civil Administration’s authorization of the new town must be nullified, since it allegedly includes a small area of privately-owned Arab land.
The town council of the Arab village of Jalud, located near the Shiloh bloc, is also listed in the appeal.
Trump's envoy meets Goldin and Shaul families, expresses outrage over Hamas's refusal to release their bodies.
by Elad Benari, of INN
Jason Greenblatt, President Donald Trump's Special Representative for International Negotiations, met during his visit to Israel this week with the families of Hadar Goldin and Oron Shaul, the IDF soldiers who were killed during the counterterrorism Operation Protective Edge in 2014 and whose bodies are still held by Hamas in Gaza.
In a statement summarizing the meeting, which took place on Wednesday, Greenblatt noted that he met with Goldin's parents and with Shaul's mother and two sisters, “and expressed his continued sympathy for the situation regarding their beloved sons.”
Greenblatt “remains outraged at Hamas' inhumane refusal to return Hadar and Oron and supports the families as they continue to seek their sons' return”, the statement added.
Trump's envoy also met with Goldin's parents last month, tweeting after the meeting, “Shame on Hamas for their inhumane actions.”
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) recently urged Hamas to comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law and provide an update on the condition of Israeli nationals who went missing in Gaza between July 2014 and 2016.
In addition to Goldin and Shaul, two Israeli citizens, Avraham (Avera) Mengistu and Hisham al-Sayed, are missing in Gaza and are believed to have mental illnesses.
The real humanitarian solution to the plight of Gaza lies not in its reconstruction, but in its deconstruction
…the prospective Palestinian state is bound to be a failed and repressive entity, and a permanent danger to its Israeli and Jordanian neighbors Elliott Abrams, in a briefing to the Middle East Forum, June 15, 2017
Hamas wants Israel to supply it with electricity “or else”, but there is no reason why Israel should submit to Hamas extortion. It is not Israel’s obligation to satisfy the needs of a population that continues, through its ongoing support of Hamas, to pursue Israel’s destruction. Efraim Inbar, Gaza in the Dark Is Not So TerribleJune 18, 2017
What is the point of raising and spending many millions of dollars to rebuild the Gaza Strip just so it can be destroyed in the next war? It’s a harsh question. Given the region’s tragic history, it is also inevitable.New York Times Editorial, October 10, 2014
Once again Gaza is in the news.
Once again the specter of “humanitarian disaster” hovers over the population on the coastal enclave, the hapless victims of the hopelessly ill-conceived endeavor to foist statehood on the Palestinian-Arabs.
Inane and iniquitous idea
Ironically, this time the deteriorating plight of the Gazans was not thrust into the media spotlight because of any Israeli initiative—or indeed, not even because of any Israeli response to Palestinian aggression—but rather at the behest of the nominal head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas.
It was, after all, at Abbas’s request that Israel reduced even further the already scant supply of electricity to the beleaguered territory, making life even more onerous for the unfortunate population of the Gaza Strip—apart, of course, from the vastly wealthy cliques of connected cronies.
Clearly, the power cuts were merely one additional measure of misery the average Gazan has had to endure since the fatally flawed formula of two-statism was instigated almost a quarter-century ago.
This inane and iniquitous idea has wrought almost every imaginable hardship on the residents of this ill-fated strip of land: Spiraling unemployment; collapsing infrastructure, domestic tyranny and fratricidal factionalism.
Depending on which report one chooses to lend credence to, unemployment has reached 40%-60% and is particularly severe among the young and the more educated segments of the population; up to 96% of the water resources are reported to be unfit for drinking; the only power station has shut down because of a lack of fuel following, the refusal of Abbas to foot the bill; the supply of electricity has been cut from four hours a day to three; the lack of sewage treatment and disposal is becoming critical.
These then, are all the bitter fruits of two-statism.
Trying to solve the problem by reintroducing its cause?
Of course, one of the most absurd aspects of the discourse on the future of Gaza and how to handle the grave and growing problems of the area, is the prevailing platitude that the governance of the area should somehow be wrested from Hamas and restored to Abbas’s Fatah, whose corrupt and dysfunctional governance was the reason for Hamas’s ascendance in the first place. As if reinstating the cause for the current problem will somehow solve it.
Unsurprisingly, the Palestinian-Arabs, particularly those in Gaza, seem decidedly skeptical as to the efficacy of such a measure. Indeed, recent Palestinian polls point to wide spread dissatisfaction with Abbas and Fatah. Overall, in the Palestinian-administered territories, almost two thirds feel that Abbas, who has been in office three times his elected term, should resign, while 70% hold this view in Gaza. Indeed, the fear that Hamas may well win a new election is widely considered the reason that none have been held since 2005.
Moreover, it is widely acknowledged that without Israel’s military presence in Judea-Samaria, the Abbas regime would be speedily disposed of, as it was in Gaza. Accordingly, there is little reason to believe that, were Abbas’s control over Gaza reinstated, it could endure without restoring IDF presence there as well—hardly something advocates of Abbas’s return seem to advocate.
Nothing unpredictable, nor unpredicted
The tragedy is that there is nothing about the Gaza fiasco that was not entirely foreseeable, and indeed, foreseen.
Over the last half-decade, I have written a slew of articles warning of the futility and folly of trying to maintain autonomous Arab rule in Gaza. But, perhaps more significantly, over a quarter-century ago (1992) I penned an article, Why we can’t dump Gaza, predicting precisely the course of events that would unfold if Israel abandoned Gaza—events that should have been obvious to anyone with the even slightest grasp of the most rudimentary elements of political science and related disciplines.
I warned: “The inevitable implication of Israeli withdrawal [from Gaza] can be ignored only at great peril to Israelis and Arabs alike”, and explained why such a measure would lead to the take-over by extremist elements like Hamas: “In the ensuing political vacuum [left by Israeli withdrawal], the most radical and violet elements in Gaza would undoubtedly seize power. In the absence of recognized institutions of government, all the more moderate elements would be speedily eliminated, either politically or physically”—as indeed they were!
I cautioned as to the impact of inadequate infrastructure: “The Gaza Strip does not have the means to sustain any semblance of durable economic life. Its water resources are increasingly being salinated through over-use, it has no land reserves, no indigenous sources of energy or power, no existing infrastructure for the conduct of international trade…”
Accordingly, I pointed out: “A total separation between Israel and the Gaza Strip …to stop the flow of ‘undesirable’ workers in search of the livelihood their immediate environs cannot provide” would precipitate widespread unemployment and resultant turmoil: “A denial of employment would inevitably increase the frustration and bitterness of the beleaguered population and its potential for incitement, lawlessness and violence”.
Foreseeing economic privation, violence and international censure
I identified the difficulties Israel would have in maintaining security and preventing smuggling of armaments particularly along the maritime border and Sinai frontier: “…the IDF would only be able to supervise along the northern and [eastern] approaches to the Strip. It would have no control over smugglers wishing to enter from the west (via the sea) or the south (via Sinai)”.
The result was not difficult to forecast: “ The combination of these elements is a certain formula for explosive social and political unrest, feeding on a deepening sense of hopelessness, misery and deprivation of the local population, feelings which will inevitably be directed against the most obvious and convenient target – Israel.”
The diagnosis of what was to follow was unequivocally clear, making operations such Cast Lead, Pillar of Defense and Protective Edge unavoidable: “…our southern settlements and towns will be the targets of frequent attacks, which will compel Israel to retaliate.”
The predicament of waging “asymmetric” war was not hard to foretell.
I wrote: “But how and against whom? Without a military presence, the IDF will not be able to identify and apprehend those responsible…”, and warned of the ramifications of “collateral damage” and consequent international censure: “Air strikes or artillery shelling on civilian population centers will cause heavy casualties among the dense, destitute masses in whose midst the attackers would conceal themselves”, asking trenchantly: “How would world opinion react”.
Consequently, I predicted: “Unilateral withdrawal from Gaza will do nothing to ease the socio-economic plight of the local inhabitants, nor will it reduce the politico-security problems of Israel; rather it will be likely to exacerbate them.” I leave it to the reader to judge to what degree that prediction has been borne out.
Underscoring the untenability of two-statism
Accordingly, just how hopeless the doctrine of two-statism is, especially with regard to Gaza, should have been abundantly clear from the get-go for anyone with an iota of intellectual integrity and a smidgeon of analytical ability. But, if for some reason, anyone required further proof, Abbas’s initiative to impose further hardship on his harrowed kinfolk should provide it, removing all shadow of doubt.
For it served to highlight two things (a) The dismal plight of the Gazan population, who along with the residents of Jericho, were the first to be subjected to the egregious experiment of thrusting self-government on the Palestinian-Arabs, two-and-half decades after the start of that experiment; (b) the callous disregard that the Palestinian-Arab leadership has for the welfare of their people. After all, calling for the reduction of power to Gaza is a measure that will negatively impact virtually every walk of life, from the functioning of medical equipment through sewage treatment to desalination plants for production of scarce drinking water.
The miserable circumstances in Gaza—in terms of the physical conditions that prevail, the quality of governance, and the priorities of the leadership—offer prospects for the future that, charitably, can only be described as bleak—underscoring just how untenable the dogma of two-statism has shown itself to be. Israel’s counter-productive largesse Indeed, the three introductory excerpts encapsulate the enduring and endemic hopelessness that is Gaza.
The first (from Elliot Abrams) relates to the nature of the political entity that can be expected to emerge from any process of two-statism. After all, there is little reason to believe—and certainly no evidence that the empirical record has produced in the last quarter century—that the prospective Palestinian-Arab state will be anything but a homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny. Indeed, even its most fervent proponents have yet to produce anything approaching a persuasive argument to have us believe otherwise.
The second (from Prof. Efraim Inbar) relates to the nature of the population that will inhabit the political entity and the kind of conduct we can expect from it. As Inbar remarks: “…the Gazans cannot be exempted from responsibility for the consequences of Hamas’s actions…Hamas remains popular in Gaza, and all polls show that Gazans support continued violence against Israel. The Gazans are…not good neighbors, and…do not deserve Israel’s sympathy.”
The third (from the New York Times editorial) relates to the nature of the prospects the territory has for its future—and futility of maintaining the belief that there is any point to sustaining the two-state enterprise. For it raises the “harsh” but “inevitable” question: “Given the region’s tragic history” what is the point of further reconstruction efforts?
In this regard, Inbar echoes this trenchant question. Taking it a little further he asks: “What moral justification exists that compels Israelis to assist people who support an organization intent on destroying them?”
His answer: “There is no strategic or moral reason why Israel should supply free electricity to Gaza.”
Humanitarian Solution to Humanitarian Crisis: Deconstruction not Reconstruction
Inbar is of course entirely correct. The Israeli government would do well to heed his counsel, and, taking its cue from Abbas’s demand, begin a phased withdrawal of all services and goods it currently provides the Palestinian Arabs, while offering the non-belligerent residents generous relocation grants, so that they can seek better, more secure lives elsewhere—outside the “cycle of violence” that the leaders wreak upon them regularly.
As I have pointed on numerous occasions, this will allow them to extricate themselves not only from any resultant “humanitarian crisis”, but also from the clutches of the cruel, corrupt cliques that have led them astray for decades.
Thus, the real humanitarian solution to the plight of Gaza lies not in its reconstruction but in its deconstruction.
Indeed I raised this proposal in my 1992 article, by asking: “What, then, is the solution to this festering and intractable problem?”
I began my answer by pointing out: “It is essential to realize that no measure, whether total annexation or total withdrawal, can be reconciled with either Israel’s security or the welfare of the Arab population there”.
I clarified “This is not a call for a forcibly imposed racist ‘transfer’ by Israel, but rather for the initiation of an appeal to enlist international support for the rehabilitation elsewhere of hundreds of thousands of refugees. They are the victims of war, held hostage…by those purporting to be committed to their welfare”.
In conclusion, I urged: “Instead of expounding the merits of a policy of dismantling Jewish settlements or abandoning the fate of Jewish settlers to some autonomous Arab regime (both antithetical to the Zionist ethos), the…leadership charged with responsibility for the conduct of Israel’s foreign policy would do well to devote its efforts to marshalling international pressure in support of this humane and historically imperative enterprise.”
Imagine how different things might have been, had my call been heeded, instead of waiting 25 years–for the ultimate indictment of two-statism.
U.S. President Donald Trump (L) speaks in Ypilanti Township, Michigan March 15, 2017 and FBI Director James Comey testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., May 3, 2017 in a combination of file photos. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/Kevin Lamarque/File Photos - RTX36NXD
President Donald Trump said Thursday that he never recorded his personal conversations with former FBI Director James Comey after more than a month of media speculation on the subject.
The president tweeted on May 12 after firing Comey that the former FBI director “better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”
Comey said that this tweet inspired him to leak details about his conversations with Trump to the press. The House Intelligence Committee also sent a letter to White House Counsel Don McGahn on June 9 asking whether the tapes exist and, if they do, to turn them over before June 23.
Trump tweeted Thursday: "With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea whether there are ‘tapes’ or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings."
Bloomberg was first to report that Trump did not make these recordings. The report cited a source that said Trump made his initial tweet in an effort to force Comey to be honest in Senate testimony.
Correction: Trump made the initial tweet on May 12 not May 9\
Content created by The Daily Caller
News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that
can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original
content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org
There’s a disturbing amount of influential Republican lawmakers who have spit in the face of party unity ever since Donald Trump was elected president. But Sen. Marco Rubio isn’t one of them.
During an interview with Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo over the weekend, Rubio explained that just because he ran against Trump in the presidential election doesn’t mean he can’t work with him now:
“Why the change from your standpoint?” Bartiromo asked Rubio. “Has President Trump done something beyond this that has changed your relationship with him?” Rubio all but dismissed the question.
“I just think this whole relationship thing is overblown,” he said. “It’s like asking two boxers, ‘Are you mad that he punched you in the face in the ring and is he mad that you punched him back?’
“When you’re competitors you go at each other. When the race is over, the race is over,” he said.
Watch below (relevant comments begin at the 2:13 mark):
Contrary to what many Democrat — and yes, also Republican — lawmakers believe, it’s not the job of Congress to oppose the president. It’s the job of Congress to work with the president — in spite of any differences — to create effective policy and move the country in a positive direction.
Donald Trump is the change the American people voted for. It’s high time more Republicans start backing him up.
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg may be a notorious gun-grabber, but on Wednesday he urged Americans to “get behind” President Donald Trump because “he’s our president” and “the public has spoken”:
Appearing on Wednesday’s episode of The View on ABC, Bloomberg said that though he did not vote for Trump, he does not want Democrats to be obstructionists just to hurt Trump politically.
[…] He said the difference between other countries and America is that “in other countries, they try to tear down the government. They try to have a revolution.” “You can protest. You can elect other officials. You can write letters. You make phone calls. You can carry signs. You can do all that,” Bloomberg said. “But in the end, we’re a democracy. The public has spoken—whether you like the results or not.”
Bloomberg is 100% correct. Unfortunately, many Americans — and the mainstream media and their deep state allies — are just too stubborn and thickheaded to understand.
“You have to make it work,” Bloomberg said. But liberals have proven time and time again that they are completely unwilling to make it work.
Bloomberg also commented on Karen Handel’s victory in the Georgia election. Jon Ossoff’s stunning loss, he said, proves that “all the money in the world can’t buy an election” because “the public is a lot smarter than people give them credit for.”
Well, at least that’s one politician who admits that We the People can think for ourselves.
However, while Bloomberg’s comments are a breath of fresh air on the surface, take what he says with a grain of salt. His position on Trump has flip-flopped more than his party affiliation, and more than likely he’s just another traitor wolf in sheep’s clothing who wants to burn Trump’s administration to the ground.
To stop these Muslims from openly declaring their support for a genocide-minded jihad terror group would be “Islamophobic,” and remember: Theresa May has vowed to stamp out “Islamophobia.”
“Hezbollah supporters call for Israel’s annihilation at London rally,” Times of Israel, June 18, 2017:
Hezbollah and Palestine supporters staging a sit-down protest brought part of central London to a standstill on Sunday afternoon.
A few hundred people marched down Regent Street, behind the Palestinian and Hezbollah terror flag, before sitting down at the junction with Oxford Street shortly after 4.30pm on Sunday.
Many carried banners with messages including “Boycott Israel”, “Freedom for Palestine” and “Zionism = racism”.
The demonstration wound its way through the capital’s retail heart, which was busy with shoppers.
A man on a loudspeaker led the protesters in chants of “Free Palestine”.
One speaker then blamed the devastating In Grenfell Tower fire, which has left at least 58 people dead, on Israel supporters. Addressing the crowd at Grosvenor Square, he said: “Many innocents were murdered by Theresa May’s cronies – many of which are supporters of Zionist ideologies. Some of the biggest corporations who are supporting the Conservative Party are Zionists. They are responsible for the murder in Grenfell. The Zionist supporters of the Tory Party.”
A counter protest, organised by Jewish groups including the Zionist Federation, was also held nearby, featuring speakers from the Board of Deputies, Jewish Leadership Council, Zionist Federation, and other communal groups.
Speaking to Jewish News after addressing the counter-demonstration in Grosvenor Square, Matthew Offord MP condemned the flying of Hezbollah flags in Central London.
He said: “There are Hezbollah flags being flown. When they were flown in 2015, outside Number 10, I spoke with the then Home Secretary who agreed with me, that as Hezbollah is proscribed under the Terrorism Act, they should not be doing so.
“The Police have a different legal opinion, and they feel that the political wing of Hezbollah is different from the paramilitary wing, and as such they allow them to do so.”.
Addressing what action he think can be taken, Offord, who was re-elected in Hendon two weeks ago, said: “I’m going to continue to press the new HS to have this proscribed under the terrorism act, so that Hezbollah flags, as with ISIS flags, should not be flown on the streets of London.”
Simon Johnson of the Jewish Leadership Council said they’d “already made this representation in our annual meetings with the Prime Minister, for each of the last two years” with regards to the flying of Hezbollah flags….
BY ROBERT SPENCER He said it. But if you repeat it, you’re a racist, bigoted Islamophobe.
“Fight them until religion is all for Allah” (Qur’an 8:39).
“IRGC Commanders: Our Main Aim Is Global Islamic Rule,” MEMRI, June 19, 2017 (thanks to the Geller Report):
In recent statements and speeches, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commanders have emphasized that the Islamic Revolution in Iran is only the first stage on the path to the spread of the rule of Shi’ite Islam in the Middle East and worldwide, and that the mission of advancing the Islamic Revolution to these heights falls to the IRGC commanders….
The following are translations of recent statements by senior IRGC commanders on this matter:
IRGC Commander Ja’fari: “We Are On The Path That Leads To The Rule Of Islam Worldwide”
On March 11, 2017, IRGC commander Ali Ja’fari said of the worldwide Islamic regime: “The history of Iran is replete with agreement on the Rule of the Jurisprudent [velayat ] which has [already] crossed Iran’s borders, and the united Islamic nation is being formed… We are on the path that leads to the rule of Islam worldwide.”[1]
On March 15, 2017, Ja’fari added on the same subject: “The Islamic Revolution is aimed at creating an infrastructure of the religion of God on earth, and it will wait for no man on its path advancement. All [Iranian] officials must adapt to the accelerated progress of the Revolution.
“The Islamic Revolution is now in its third stage – that is, [the stage] of assembling the Islamic government, and with God’s help it will pass this stage successfully despite the ups and downs that constantly occur….
“The religious seminaries and the IRGC bear the joint mission to advance and deepen the Islamic Revolution. This is God’s promise for the salvation of humanity, and we are charged with it. The senior revolutionary clerics and the IRGC will without a doubt actualize God’s promises, while implementing a comprehensive plan of the Islamic Revolution for shaping the picture of the Islamic world.
“Our internal spiritual and material potential for creating [such a global regime], and the robustness of the [Iranian] regime, which constitutes the main nucleus of this plan, are expanding in might. According to the words of [Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini, if the revolution and the regime stop on the path, this will cause damage to Islam.”[2]
On April 30, 2017, at a teachers’ conference, Ja’fari said: “Some [people] have a flawed perception of the Islamic Revolution, for they think that its aim was only to defeat the regime of the Shah and to establish the Islamic regime [in Iran]. [But] if we look at the words of the Imam [Khomeini], we will discover a correspondence between the Islamic Revolution and the spread of the religion of Islam. In order to build the Islamic regime, there is no other path but to advance the Islamic Revolution… As the Imam said: If this Islamic regime is defeated, Islam is defeated….
Supreme Leader’s Representative In The IRGC Saeedi: “The Islamic Revolution Is The Prelude To Islam Becoming Global”
Similar statements were made on March 15, 2017, by Ali Saeedi, Supreme Leader Khamenei’s representative in the IRGC: “There is no doubt that the Islamic Revolution is a prelude to Islam becoming global. Therefore, the Revolution must be strengthened in the best possible way, in order to create the framework for the revelation of God’s promise.”[4]
Deputy Qods Deputy Force Commander Esmail Qaani: “The Main Aim Is Global Rule”
On March 1, 2017, IRGC Qods Force deputy commander Esmail Qaani said: “Without a doubt, our martyrs and those of the dear ones like you Fatimiyyoun[5] will not settle for less than the global rule of the Imam Mahdi. Our martyrs inaugurated a great path. Syria and Aleppo are the temporary aims, and the main aim is global rule, which I hope is not far off.”[6]…
S/Sgt. Hadas Malka, z”l, who was murdered on Friday in Jerusalem. She took this selfie some 20 minutes before an Arab terrorist stabbed her to death. She was 23.
Every time a Palestinian Arab kills one or two or 30 of us, we take measures to increase security or to deter the next potential terrorist. We deploy police officers and soldiers, we demolish the houses of terrorists, we reduce the number of permits granted to Arabs to work in Israel or to visit the Temple Mount.
We are doing all of these things this time, too. The terrorists that murdered Hadas came in with Arabs from the territories who were allowed to enter Jerusalem to pray at the al-Aqsa mosque during Ramadan. So they’ll be checked more carefully next time. Numerous illegal residents of the capital were rounded up and deported.
But all of these measures are like aspirin to a cancer patient. They are aimed at the symptoms. We need to treat the disease. So first, the diagnosis:
Israel, or at least many Israelis, suffer from a severe case of what psychologists call imposter syndrome:
Despite external evidence of their competence, those exhibiting the syndrome remain convinced that they are frauds and do not deserve the success they have achieved. Proof of success is dismissed as luck, timing, or as a result of deceiving others into thinking they are more intelligent and competent than they believe themselves to be. …
If it is not addressed, victims can develop anxiety, stress, low self-confidence, depression, shame and self-doubt . People [and nations– vr] who suffer from impostor syndrome tend to reflect and dwell upon extreme failure, mistakes and negative feedback from others.
The Diaspora experience seems to have left some of us believing that we are unworthy of living in the land of Israel and of being sovereign in Jerusalem. They believe that our victory in the 1967 war was due to “luck,” and that the “negative feedback” – great expression! – we receive from Jew-hating Arabs and Europeans is in fact correct.
The syndrome is more than just a psychological quirk. It has had and continues to have disastrous real-life consequences.
It is bad enough that we are so neurotic, like unhappy little Woody Allens, but when we broadcast our doubts and insecurity to the world, including our deadly enemies, it becomes a direct cause of events like the murder of Hadas Malka.
Some like to say that the cause of terrorism is that the Palestinian Arabs have lost hope, that there is no “horizon” in view for them. But this is exactly the opposite of the truth. What the Arabs hope for is to finally get rid of us, and analysis shows that terrorism increases whenever the Palestinians become more hopeful. So our failure to act like the conquerors we are doesn’t make the Arabs like us any better; it actually encourages terrorism.
A prime example of this was the surrender of the Temple Mount to the Jordanian waqf in 1967. Perhaps Moshe Dayan and others thought this would help bring peace, but it had exactly the opposite effect, sending the message that we hadn’t conquered Jerusalem after all, and giving the Arabs hope that they could reverse the outcome of the war.
There’s no question of what the Arabs would do in a similar situation, because they already showed us. In 1948 they expelled every last Jew from the part of the land they controlled, made stables out of our synagogues and turned our gravestones into urinals. They probably expected that we would demolish al-Aqsa and put a synagogue, or even a new Temple, in its place. We had every right to do so, as the original owners of the land who had reasserted their control over it.
But we didn’t, and over the years we’ve behaved as though we lost the war rather than winning it in a rather spectacular fashion. We have little by little allowed pressure from the West and terror from the Arabs to justify concession after concession, with the worst one being the Oslo decision to reintroduce the poisonous PLO into the land that we had won at great cost.
The Arabs, who should long ago have lost hope in the possibility of dislodging us, were encouraged by our weakness, our apparent belief that we really didn’t belong here. So naturally, they continue to push against our weak spots.
It will be a long a difficult journey, but we can reverse the process. One good place to start is the place that our neurotic surrender started on the day of our victory in 1967, the Temple Mount. We should reverse the process whereby a “status quo” has been established in which the Muslims act like the owners of the property and Jews can visit only by their sufferance. It is not acceptable that Jewish visits to the Mount should be so sharply limited, while Muslims can come and go and even play football there if they wish. The absurd and humiliating regulation that Jews may not pray, lift their hands, or even cry on the Temple Mount should be revoked. Ultimately, a synagogue should be constructed on the site, as former IDF Rabbi Shlomo Goren wished.
The response to suggestions like the above is always that “it will inflame Muslim anger” and make the situation worse. The “status quo” is treated as untouchable (although it seems to inching closer and closer to excluding Jews altogether). But Muslims are quite capable of inflaming their own anger, and the more it is indulged the more inflamed it gets.
Another area in which our behavior needs to change is our perennial cooperation with failed attempts to negotiate a “two-state solution” with the PLO. Our Prime Minister and even Yitzhak Herzog have had moments of clarity in which they admitted that the idea is chimerical. And yet, we keep giving US Presidents and Secretaries of State hope that we can get them the Nobel Prizes they believe they deserve (and giving the PLO hope that it can weasel new advantages out the process). Enough.
The struggle we are in is a struggle of wills as much as a military one. Terrorism can’t be stopped by force alone, because we share the same piece of land with Arabs and we are not going to wipe them out. It can’t be stopped by concessions, because they simply encourage the enemy to push harder. The only practical solution is to eliminate the terrorist’s will to fight, by proving to them that no matter what they do, we will not retreat, that continued violence will only make life for their people harder and move them farther from their goal.
The same policies that will preserve the country in the diplomatic and military arenas will ultimately end terrorism. Our actions should always be aimed in the direction of more sovereignty, not less. We must never give up territory, never release prisoners before the end of their sentences, and always respond to violence with disproportionate force.
No one who has not lost a child really knows what it is like, but every time someone’s child like Hadas is lost, it is painful for the whole society. It is every parent’s worst nightmare. Stopping the nightmares won’t be easy or quick, but no magic is required; just an understanding of what has to be done – and a will strong enough to do it. Posted in Israel and Palestinian Arabs, Terrorism | Leave a comment
TEL AVIV – Senior White House advisor and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner will travel to the Middle East this week in order to advance a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians, according to a White House official.
Together with Middle East special envoy Jason Greenblatt, Kushner is slated to arrive in Israel on Wednesday to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The two will then travel to Ramallah to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah.
“It is important to remember that forging a historic peace agreement will take time and to the extent that there is progress, there are likely to be many visits by both Mr. Kushner and Mr. Greenblatt, sometimes together and sometimes separately, to the region and possibly many trips by Israeli and Palestinian negotiators to Washington, D.C. or other locations as they pursue substantive talks,” the senior official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“Excited to be traveling back to Israel and the Pal. Territories to continue the discussion about the possibility of peace,” Greenblatt, who arrived in Israel on Monday, tweeted on Sunday night.
According to the official, ongoing dialogue has been occurring behind-the-scenes since Trump left the region last month.
“President Trump has made it clear that working towards achieving a lasting peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians is a top priority for him. He strongly believes that peace is possible,” the official said.
The visit to Israel will be Kushner’s second in the past two months. Kushner and his wife Ivanka joined Trump in Israel on the president’s first state visit abroad in May.
NEW YORK — Addressing the phenomenon of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting the Jewish state, Dani Dayan, Israel’s Consul General in New York, declared that the “real war” is the intimidation, disruption and attempted silencing of pro-Israel voices on U.S. college campuses.
“There we have a real war,” Dayan said, referring to attempts to shut down freedom of expression for Israel defenders on American campuses. “And we have to be much more aggressive, much more assertive. … But it is not only an Israeli problem, what is happening on many campuses across America. I think it is first and foremost an American problem.”
Dayan was speaking to this reporter during an onstage interview at the JBiz Expo, an annual business networking and pro-Israel event hosted by the Orthodox Jewish Chamber of Commerce.
Last month, Dayan himself was repeatedly heckled and disrupted during a speech at the City College of New York. There, students from the CCNY chapter of the Students for Justice in Palestine and other anti-Israel groups protested and temporarily disrupted the event.
At the Jbiz Expo interview, Dayan vowed to return to CCNY. “We should not give any ground to our enemies,” he stated. “On the contrary, I will make a point of coming to the same place again next year and the next semester. And we must persevere.”
Regarding the anti-Israel actions on U.S. campuses, Dayan surmised, “In some senses, I think we are in the same boat, as we say sometimes in Israel, with other movements that their freedom of speech is obstructed on many campuses.”
He continued: “It happens on the West Coast. It happens on the East Coast. I think as a foreign representative I have to be very careful but I think it is a problem that American society has to deal with not only in respect to Israel.”
“In some senses, it is the same phenomenon that we see on campuses by extreme elements that are also anti-Israeli but not only anti-Israeli. In some cases they are even anti-American. And we as Israel, we have to be relentless. We cannot give up.”
BDS is ‘Big Failure’
Turning to the larger BDS campaign to boycott Israel’s economic and cultural institutions, Dayan used the occasion to declare the BDS movement a “big failure.”
“Let’s not forget that,” he stated. “You know, I saw a survey of the market value of the companies targeted by BDS and all of them – for sure the average, maybe there was one that for common business reasons didn’t – but on the average they made twice the market performance. So the economic BDS is a total failure. And it is sufficient to see the shape of Israel’s economy these days.”
Dayan pointed to the trend of major U.S. and international companies purchasing Israeli high-tech firms as well as top tech companies maintaining satellite headquarters in Israel.
In March, Intel purchased the Israeli driverless vehicles company Mobileye for $15.3 billion.
“We think of ourselves as an Israeli company as much as a US company,” Intel CEO Brian Krzanich said at a Jerusalem press conference alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following the Mobileye acquisition.
“So Israel’s economy is doing extremely well,” added Dayan. “The shekel, which I remember having a 400% annual rate of inflation, today is the strongest currency in the world. If that’s not a miracle I don’t know what a miracle is.”
Dayan also declared the cultural BDS movement “a total failure” and he poked fun at anti-Israel advocate Roger Waters, who has led an effort to persuade performers to boycott the Jewish state.
“I can’t keep track of the rock and pop and hip-hop bands that come to Israel,” he said. “From Lady Gaga to Madonna. And yesterday I think was one of the oldies, Rod Stewart, performing in Tel Aviv. So there is this nudnik Roger Waters from Pink Floyd. We can’t survive without him?”
Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him onTwitter @AaronKleinShow.Follow him onFacebook.
INTO THE FRAY — Bennett’s academic code: Right sentiment, wrong strategy
By MARTIN SHERMAN
Education Minister Naftali Bennett introduces Code of Ethics for Israeli academic institutions
In-depth 2013 study: “Israeli academics have been free to engage in ‘nazification’ of Israel”
Had such professional misconduct occurred in the natural or physical sciences there would have doubtless been serious consequences: e.g. the collapse of a bridge following phony engineering calculations…Yet it would seem that when it comes to the social sciences or the humanities… the researcher can escape punishment for the worst kind of malpractice…In this Orwellian world where war is peace and ignorance is strength, not only are the falsifiers not censured — they are applauded — Prof Efraim Karsh, on radical left-wing academics in “Fabricating Israeli History”
…no ethical code will open the doors of the left-wing monasteries to the right-wing “heretics” who dare to think differently than the pseudo-liberals who dominate them.. — Dr.Dror Eydar, Israel Hayom, June 12, 2017
Earlier this week, Education Minister Naftali Bennett caused a huge public uproar when he introduced his proposed “Code of Ethics” for the country’s institutions of higher learning, stipulating rules, or at least, guidelines, for the conduct of lecturers in the classroom.
The two principle components of the “Code” appear to be constraints on lecturers, restricting them from (a) promoting their personal political views in class and (b) endorsing the boycott of Israel, in general and from calling for an academic boycott against it, in particular.
Cat among the Establishment pigeons?
Bennett’s initiative certainly set the proverbial “cat among the pigeons” across the nation’s academic Establishment — and beyond.
Indeed, it was immediately excoriated by all and sundry — including our oh-so politically correct president, Reuven Rivlin — alleging that it would somehow undermine academic freedom and inhibit the vigor of academic inquiry.
These allegations are, of course, totally unfounded and should be rebuffed with the disdain they so richly deserve.
Indeed, as Dror Eydar notes: “This characterization [of the proposed code] as an ‘attack on democracy’ and ‘attack on academic freedom’ are as much as an insult to our intelligence as they are deceitful”.
Dr. Dror Eydar
He adds acerbically and aptly: “If there is an assault on freedom of expression, it exists right now in most the departments of social sciences and humanities, which function as ‘gatekeepers’ that preclude admission of lecturers and researchers who hold conservative-right-wing views…”
Eydar’s harsh condemnation mirrors much of my own personal experience but that is something I shall return to shortly.
At this stage, however, it is clear that Bennett has put his finger on a crucial issue, impacting the tenor of the public discourse in Israel, and judging from the furor that it has ignited, it appears to have touched a raw nerve among the entrenched and entitled academic elites.
Spotlighting the stranglehold
In this, he has shown considerable courage for broaching the subject boldly and should be warmly commended for spotlighting one of most acute issues afflicting the nation today: The stranglehold of the Left on academic discourse in — and about — Israel.
However, two trenchant questions regarding his initiative must be raised: (a) What is the scope and severity of this problem? (b) Are the measures proposed the most appropriate and effective for dealing with it?
As to the former, there can be little doubt as to both the dimensions and gravity of the problem. As to the latter, there is regrettably considerable doubt as to whether the “Code” is the optimal instrument for addressing the problem — or if it addresses the cardinal components of it at all.
Just how grave the problem of exclusionary bias is in the Israeli academe — at least in the Social Sciences and Humanities –is reflected in a comprehensive study of academic freedom in Israel by the widely respected researcher, Professor Ofira Seliktar.
Entitled“Academic Freedom in Israel: A Comparative Perspective”, it conducts a comparative analysis of the situation in Israel, the UK and Germany and comes up with several disturbing conclusions regarding the abuse of academic freedom in Israel.
The following are some of the more worrying excerpts from the study.
“Zionism is a colonial-imperialist movement…”
Seliktar depicts the prevailing atmosphere in much of the Social Sciences and Humanities in the country’s academic institutions: “Neo-Marxist, critical scholarship has acquired a substantial following in faculties of the liberal arts (the humanities and social sciences) in Israeli universities.”
Prof. Ofira Seliktar
She elaborates: “Known as post Zionism, it asserts that Zionism is a colonial-imperialist movementand that its progeny, the State of Israel, is a colonial-apartheid country… Israel is presented as a Nazi-like state and the Israel Defense Force…is accused of Nazi-like behavior”.
Seliktar then goes on to depict the exclusionary nature of the syllabuses offered students and the narrow perspectives it provides them: “As a rule, courses offered by self-described post Zionist faculty have been heavily weighted toward this neo-Marxist…paradigm, with little or no effort expended to provide any different perspective.”
She then expounds on how Israeli academics harness their position to advance their radical — even anti-Zionist — political agenda: “Combining academic research and political work, post-Zionist academics have engaged in a robust effort to compel Israel to withdraw from the territories; some advocated the return of Palestinian refugees in order to create a bi-national Jewish-Palestinian entity”.
Moreover, she points to a reprehensible phenomenon, revealing :“Israeli scholars have adopted a leadership role in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions(BDS) movement, launched international petition drives condemning the IDF for war crimes, and inspired lawsuits against individual commanders.”
“Israeli academics engage in ‘nazification’ of Israel…”
Seliktar laments: “Government and university authorities have been slow to respond to this threat, due to the prevalent notion that academic freedom protects faculty speech and action, both intramurally and extramurally.”
Just how predictable the current howls of protest at Bennett’s attempt to deal with this outrageous state of affairs are, is reflected in her observation: “…radical scholars and their liberal defenders in the academy and media have warned that imposing any limits would injure Israel’s standing in the academic world and place it at-odds with standards of academic freedom practiced in other democratic countries…”
Seliktar harshly criticizes both the cronyism and the criteria for advancement within Israeli faculties of Social Sciences and Humanities: “…Israeli scholars have been routinely promoted based on publication in radical presses…and journals of dubious academic credibility.”
She warns that “…none of the legal remedies developed in Great Britain and the United States are applicable to Israel…” Thus, according to Seliktar, “Israeli academics have been free to engage in ‘nazification’ and ‘apartheidization’ of Israel”, unencumbered by constraints prevalent in other Western democracies. Furthermore, she cautions that their work has been seized on by Israel’s most indefatigablefoes: “Their work has been quoted by pro-Palestinian or pro- Iranian circles seeking academic legitimacy for their positions.”
Summing up, Seliktar cautions that “The lack of understanding of how other countries balance academic freedom with responsibility to state and society has enabled radical scholars not only to abuse academic privileges, but also claim that Israel is sliding toward McCarthyism…”
Right diagnosis, wrong remedy
This then, is the dire predicament that prompted Bennett’s well-intentioned initiative, and with which it was reportedly designed to contend.
However, as emerges from Seliktar’s study, it is unlikely to address the major detrimental effects prevailing today in Israel’s academic milieu, or the grave damage the ongoing abuse of academic freedom is inflicting on Israel internationally.
Of course, I in no way wish to belittle the gravity of the fear of intimidation , even retribution, individual students may feel in the classroom should they have the temerity to challenge the political doctrine expounded by their lecturers. However, at the national level, concern should be focused elsewhere. Here, as Seliktar indicates, the problem is not so much which views are expressed — and which are suppressed — within the limited arena of a lecture. What is most damaging to Israel are those that are aired — or stifled — in academic conferences, journals and mainstream media opinion columns, using academic credentials to lend an air of indisputable authority to views conveyed in them.
However, these effects are not addressed by Bennett’s proposed “Code”. Indeed not only does it not even purport to address them, Bennett himself pointed out, in response to his detractors’ claims that he is constraining academic activity, that in these matters academics will still have unfettered freedoms.
It is therefore clear that despite the accurate diagnosis of the malaise in Israel’s institutions of higher learning, the remedy prescribed in Bennett’s initiative will almost certainly be ineffective.
The real problem: Criteria for admission & promotion
Seliktars’s study underscores that the root of the problem is not so much restricting the expression of political proclivities in the lecture hall, but the criterion for admission to the ranks of academia, and for promotion to senior academic positions. These, too, are issues left largely unaddressed by the Bennett “Code”.
To underscore the severity of these two issues, I would challenge the readers to identify any senior tenured academic (and certainly any junior academic seeking tenure) in any major academic establishment, who overtly challenged the Oslo “peace process”, warned of the death and destruction it would wreak on Jew and Arab alike, and urged the Israeli government, publically and persistently, to abandon the perilous path it has embarked upon.
I would be more than grateful to learn of the existence of any such redoubtable “renegade”.
Moreover, consider the question of promotion. Suppose some intrepid academic rebel penned a brilliantly prescient article, predicting precisely the disastrous course the peace process would follow, the gigantic wave of carnage it would precipitate, the terror it would bring to Israeli streets, cafes and buses; and the deprivation and devastation it would bring to the Palestinian-Arabs –particularly in Gaza.
Admission & promotion criteria (cont.)
Anyone, even remotely familiar with the atmosphere that pervaded the academic milieu at the time, would know — as a matter of certainty — that such an article, no matter how exhaustively researched and/or tightly argued, would have little to no chance of publication in any major journal in the field of political science, international relations or any related discipline.
By contrast, if an article, echoing received wisdom of the time, set out a glowing prognosis of how the Middle East was on the threshold of a new era of peace and prosperity, it would have little difficulty in finding its way into the pages of respected academic publications.
So, if the criterion for promotion is one’s record of publication, who is likely be promoted? The candidate who got it totally wrong, but can point to a long list of publications? Or the candidate who got it exactly right, but had no record of published research?
Prof. Efraim Karsh
The answer is of course painfully clear — sadly reinforcing the lamentable state of affairs in the Israeli academe, so succinctly conveyed by Prof. Karsh in the introductory excerpt: “In this Orwellian world where war is peace and ignorance is strength, not only are the falsifiers not censured — they are applauded.”
Indeed they are!
“…solution is to establish new institutions”
None of these detrimental defects will be remedied by preventing a lecturer from expressing his/her political credo in class, or by compelling him/her to present opposing perspectives to his/her students. Indeed, how realistic is it to expect a radical left-wing professor to present the views of right-wing conservatism in anything approaching an adequate and equitable fashion?
No, the quest for a comprehensive and fundamental remedy must be conducted in an entirely different direction — not by quashing expression of certain positions, but by providing alternative frameworks and mechanisms for the expression of opposing positions that can effectively challenge the dominant (indeed, domineering) paradigm that currently monopolizes the academic discourse.
In this I find myself in complete agreement with Eydar, both when he warns: “no ethical code will open the doors of the left-wing monasteries to the right-wing “heretics” who dare to think differently than the pseudo-liberals who dominate them”; and when he prescribes: “The solution is to establish new institutions and think tanks as an alternative”.
I totally agree and — in the interests of full disclosure — this is the major thrust of my endeavor at the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies, established precisely for this purpose: To establish a “theater of engagement” in which the Left-wing academic elites are compelled to engage intellectual adversaries, and in which their doctrinaire positions can be publically exposed for the dangerous drivel that they really are.
Accordingly, I call on the Education Minister to channel his efforts (and resources) into this and other like-minded enterprises. I have little doubt that this strategy — of fostering more robust debate, rather than trying to straight-jacket it — will be far more fruitful in remedying the ailment he so accurately diagnosed.
