From Ian:
If the US wants a two-state solution, it must help the Palestinians help themselves
Specifically, Washington should focus energies and resources on assisting the Palestinians overcome five fundamental obstacles currently preventing peace with Israel and their own independence.
First, it must make its funding for the Palestinian Authority, currently about $235 million per year, contingent on a) the P.A. reforming its notorious educational materials to promote peace and co-existence to children, rather than terrorism and Jew hatred; and b) reforming government media so TV news broadcasts no longer deliver daily diatribes about “filthy Jews” and the Zionist enemy who “stole their land.”
Aid must also be conditioned on the Palestinian leadership ending its unconscionable “pay-for-slay” program—paying lifetime salaries to terrorists who kill innocent Jews. Currently the Palestinians spend some $300 million annually on this program. Ironically, rather than supporting peace initiatives, U.S. taxpayer dollars currently fund most of the pay-for slay program costs.
In short, the United States should reward good behavior and penalize bad behavior. It should stipulate that our financial support depends on the Palestinians ending terrorism and promoting peace. Without such incentives, there is surely no hope for the two-state solution that Biden and other Americans swear they are committed to.
Second, Washington must step up its support for the Abraham Accords, to promote Arab-Israeli cooperation and commerce. Simultaneously, it should invite the Palestinians to take part in the economic and cultural cooperation thriving around them, while making it clear that progress towards normalization and peace will continue with or without them.
Third, it must harshly condemn Hamas’s efforts in the Gaza Strip to lure Israel into wars by periodically launching unprovoked attacks against the Jewish state. Likewise, it should emphatically lend its support to the international community when Israel fights back.
Fourth, it needs to help the Palestinians develop economic self-sufficiency. Currently corruption abounds in the Palestinian economy, and about one in four Palestinians has no job. Without Western aid, the economy would collapse. No two-state solution can happen without a self-sustaining Palestinian economy.
The United States and European Union pour hundreds of millions of dollars into “support” for the Palestinians, but where does this money go? Where are the U.S.- and E.U.-sponsored training, incubator and economic development programs? The most lucrative opportunity in the self-ruled Palestinian territories should be meaningful employment, not terrorist pay-for-slay.
Fifth and finally, the United States should make a concerted effort to strengthen the P.A. and help it regain control of all autonomous Palestinian territories, including Gaza. Two states and Palestinian independence will remain a fantasy until the Palestinians achieve some level of political unity and stability—the structure and institutions of a state.
Caroline Glick:
Saudi Arabia's Challenge to Biden: Let's Abandon FDR's Deal With Ibn Saud
Arabs, Ibn Saud said, "would choose to die rather than yield their land to the Jews."
Roosevelt, for his part, assured Ibn Saud "that he would do nothing to assist the Jews against the Arabs and would make no move hostile to the Arab people."
Generations of U.S. presidents kept Roosevelt's word. They accepted that Arab rejection of the Jews was legitimate, and that Jewish rights were, at best, contingent on Arab acceptance. The Trump administration was the first to depart from that position—and it did so only after the Arabs themselves abandoned it. Had the Emiratis not made clear they were unwilling to subordinate their national interest of peace with Israel to the Palestinians' intransigence, even President Trump likely would have continued to push Netanyahu to accept Palestinian demands.
Now, Ibn Saud's grandchildren are themselves willing to openly accept Israel, without preconditions. And the question is whether Joe Biden will act as Donald Trump did, and follow their lead.
Depressingly, it appears the Biden administration is not willing to walk away from the FDR-Ibn Saud deal, even though maintaining it alienates Ibn Saud's very heirs. Last week, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken participated in a summit of the Abraham Accords member states in Abu Dhabi. Blinken and other senior officials continued their efforts to stand the Abraham Accords on their head by peddling the outmoded "Palestinians first" paradigm, which dominated the Arab world's fraught relations with Israel until 2020. Blinken, State Department Counselor Derek Chollet, and State Department Spokesman Ned Price all made clear that the U.S. used its presence in Abu Dhabi to divert the discussions away from collective action against Iran and economic cooperation with Israel, and toward Palestinian grievances. Chollet said the U.S. is "fully supportive of the Palestinians joining" the Abraham Accords and that the summit "focused on strengthening the Palestinian economy and improving the quality of life of Palestinians."
While Israel, the Saudis, and the Arab members of the Abraham Accords are focused on blocking Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and becoming a regional hegemon, the Biden administration remains committed—despite its tepid denials—to achieving a nuclear deal, and broader rapprochement, with Iran. Such a deal will provide Iran with the financial means and international legitimacy to become a nuclear-armed regional hegemon that threatens the very existence of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Abraham Accords partners.
In other words, the Biden administration is committed to FDR's hostile posture on Israel, and opposes the Saudis' desire to abandon Ibn Saud's anti-Israel hostility.
The stakes for the U.S. couldn't be higher. If the Biden administration joins the Abraham Accords signees in their full acceptance of Israel as their brother and partner in the lands of Abraham's children, it will secure its legacy and America's posture as the lead superpower in the Middle East for years to come. If it refuses to do so, it will strike a mortal blow to America's alliance system in the Middle East, reducing U.S. power and influence in the region for years to come.
Netanyahu's strategy to strengthen Israel in its 75th year - opinion
Netanyahu has earned the stature to speak without ambiguity
LIKE HIM or not, having served Israel’s government for most of its life and his own, Netanyahu has earned the stature to speak without ambiguity. He ascended to the leadership of an Israel that was still a fledgling, quasi-socialist-agrarian nation in a hostile neighborhood, lacking the confidence to consolidate biblical lands at the core of Jewish identity, surprisingly recovered in the defensive Six Day War of 1967. Instead, he passively accepts his opponents’ descriptions of the territories as “disputed” and eventually “occupied.”
Under his leadership, Israel has been transformed into a vibrant market economy and a technological, intelligence and diplomatic powerhouse. Defying even his own expectations, Netanyahu secured peace agreements with a large portion of the Arab world; the Abraham Accords circle of peace is still expanding, and Israel is establishing diplomatic and economic relations globally at a spectacular pace.
This is Netanyahu-the-Diplomat’s moment to end the confusing dual-action tactic of sipping West Bank development while blowing two states bubbles from the same rhetorical straw.
Likud, religious Zionists, PA and Hamas are apparently unanimous on this: No one is interested in two states west of the Jordan River. Yet, 4 of their people of all cultures seem to coexist peaceably for mutual benefit without a political theater in the Old City of Jerusalem and these newer West Bank cities. More narrative clarity from Israel might help well-intentioned international allies move on, too.
A visible integration framework could include ending the occupation by suspending military law in the West Bank and applying Israeli civil law across the territories. As the functional integration described here advances, Israel could initiate a process for easing travel restrictions and work quotas for Palestinians between the territories and the rest of Israel.
Palestinian community leaders would have incentives to monitor and preempt security risks, which would be a paramount regulator of the pace and flow of integration for law-abiding Palestinians who would enjoy social mobility in Israel’s labor market. In other words, Palestinians’ individual and leaders’ choices would determine the pace of their access.
Continuing progress on these vectors of integration could deliver fair access to opportunity for all law-abiding inhabitants of the territories, consistent with Jewish religious and cultural principles. It would help to create a virtuous circle of development both within Judea and Samaria and the rest of Israel, consolidating support for the governing coalition within Israel and providing a realistic vision for diplomatic progress for all of Israel’s international allies, including supporting a core diplomatic priority of encouraging Saudi Arabia’s accession to the Abraham Accords circle of peace.
A new vision could be revealed in action, upgrading tentative words of defense. A new transparent narrative for a new process: freer movement and freer access to opportunity for all of Israel’s inhabitants. Ground-level practical integration could also involve community self-governance - always security-dependent - and in due course a constitutional path toward national participation on terms consistent with Israel’s unique status as a Jewish nation.
On the eve of Israel’s 75th anniversary, Netanyahu’s Likud and its partners have finally won the chance to reveal and deliver Israel’s destiny as the Prophet Isaiah’s light unto the nations, a beacon of spiritual and moral virtue for all humanity.
From Ian:
JPost Editorial:
UN's advisory board on Israeli 'occupation' is hypocrisy
It asked the ICJ to define how Israel’s practices affected the legal status of Israel’s “occupation” of territory over the pre-1967 lines, which would include the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), Gaza (from which Israel unilaterally withdrew in 2005) and east Jerusalem.
The UNGA resolution specifically included the “Holy City of Jerusalem” and referred to the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site, only by its Muslim name of al-Haram al-Sharif.
When a preliminary vote on the request for an ICJ opinion was held in November, 98 countries voted in favor and only 17, including Israel, opposed it.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu credited the drop in support for the Palestinians’ position and the additional support for Israel to his efforts, along with those of President Isaac Herzog, the Foreign Ministry and UN Ambassador Gilad Erdan.
“This is once again a one-sided Palestinian move that undermines the basic principles for resolving the conflict and potentially harming any possibility for a future process. The Palestinians want to replace negotiations with unilateral measures. They are once again using the UN to attack Israel.”
Yair Lapid
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh praised the UN vote as “a new victory for the Palestinians.” Hamas also welcomed the UN vote.
It is a dangerous move that is far from solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is likely to further inflame it, giving the Palestinians no incentive to sit down and negotiate in good faith.
Furthermore, the UN and ICJ are making a mockery of their own mandates and are being hijacked by the Palestinians. This is similar to the open-ended UN Commission of Inquiry into Israel headed by Navi Pillay.
The Palestinian push for the ICJ ruling is part of its ongoing lawfare against Israel. The court must avoid giving the impression of built-in bias against Israel when choosing the panel it appoints.
'Even animals get better treatment': Tortured by Hamas, man finds refuge in Israel
E., a resident of the Gaza Strip, talks to us from an apartment in greater Tel Aviv, where he has been residing for the past week, helped by friends, who have provided him with a roof over his head. E. has been put on Hamas' blacklist after he made several public statements and published posts, in which he dared to criticize Hamas' policy in Gaza. He attacked the Hamas leadership for violating human rights, criticized the discrimination against women in public areas, and expressed his infuriation with the way Hamas' security institutions handle anti-regime activists.
It is quite bizarre that the one who initially defended political prisoners, eventually became one himself. The Hamas' long arm found E. and he very quickly found himself subject to threats, intimidation, and physical and mental harassment.
"In the initial investigations I was severely beaten, with bruises all over my body; it was very brutal. Even animals are not treated this way. One investigator would walk past me, punch me, then another one would come and beat me mercilessly," says E. "In the later investigations, I suffered less physical torture, but more mental torture. They would offend me, curse my mother and father and threaten them. For example, on one occasion they threatened to kill me and told me, 'Tomorrow we will shoot you and throw you to the dogs, and tell everyone that you collaborated with Israel'."
Another time they wanted me to sign a document saying that after I was released I was forbidden from talking to anyone about what they did to me during the investigation, and not to share what I went through with human rights organizations. Each time after you are arrested and released, you have to take painkillers and rest for three to four days to physically get over what happened. Mentally, it stays with you. You can't forget. This is one of the things that made me leave Gaza."
A Journey in search of livelihood
Two years ago, E. was forced to leave the Gaza Strip following an investigation, during which it was made clear to him that the Hamas security forces had information about his plan to initiate mass demonstrations in Gaza. E. went to Egypt, tried to make a living from a restaurant business, and last August he managed to return to his family in Gaza. "I saw that I had returned to the same Gaza, with the same problems. There is no freedom, there are no jobs, and the jobs that are there are given to Hamas and their loyalists. There is no stability in life. The situation is bad and people live from hand to mouth. Everything I earn – it all goes, nothing is left.
"The children grow up, they have needs. You have to buy them clothes for the winter and heat the house. There are so many everyday needs, and then you ask yourself, 'what future awaits them and me? It makes you think, is this how I want to live? It doesn't make sense. The family eats fresh meat only once a week. Some people eat half portions just so that they can get through the day. Every house in Gaza has debts to the electricity corporation and people have to pay off loans that they took.
"It's getting to the point where residents are not using their cars unless there is something essential because they do not want to waste money on fuel. Many factories in Gaza are closed. Business owners are in and out of prison because of debts, but it's not just because of money. It's in almost every area of life. There is no infrastructure and no projects. People avoid going to hospitals because they don't trust the medical treatment there. Hamas doesn't provide services. There is no future."
From Ian:
From Jew vilification to the delegitimization of Israel - opinion
From the dawn of time, Jews have been maligned and slandered. Apion's vilification, the blood libels, the Dreyfus trial, and of course, the antisemitic propaganda of the 20th century are just a few examples. All of these manifestations of antisemitism got an "upgrade" to vilifying Israel, where the majority of world Jewry resides, by taking away the very legitimacy of Jewish presence in its ancestral homeland.
This effort began when the Roman emperor Hadrian renamed the land of Israel "Palestine" in order to detach the Jews from their homeland. In a nutshell, the vilification of the Jew has evolved into the delegitimization of the State of Israel. Words have power, and we still suffer the consequences of those words written and spoken over the last two millennia.
Today, the effort to delegitimize Israel has gone global and has permeated organizations like the United Nations and Amnesty International, which routinely try to undermine Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state within any borders. Furthermore, with the democratization of communication due to the emergence of social media, the average person has been handed the power and platform to throw misinformed accusations at Israel with the click of a button.
Making matters worse, influencers and celebrities can reach three, four, or even ten times the number of all Jews on the planet, spreading incorrect information. They share inaccurate content out of ignorance (like the star of Netflix's hit show Wednesday, Jenna Ortega) or out of pure malice (like antisemite Kanye West). Thus, the average person, who forms their opinions, including geo-political stances, based on memes, Instagram stories and TikTok videos, will easily be misinformed by these influencers. I experienced this firsthand when my friends around the world would easily share misinformation, while terrorist organizations were unleashing thousands of rockets upon Israeli civilians.
Seth Frantzman:
The UN's vote against Israel and its historic contradictions
This is the essence of the contradictory policies behind “international law.” Western colonial powers were able to set up various administrations all around the world, sometimes only for a few decades. During that time they often carved up areas and created arbitrary lines on maps and then partitioned the areas they had taken over. But the Western powers were rarely accused under international law of “illegal occupation.” The concept of “international law” was primarily inaugurated after western colonial powers left most areas of the world.
The remaining vestiges of colonial-era rule, such as some islands here and there, are not considered “occupied.” In this narrative, Western countries never “occupied,” but when they decided to partition countries or draw arbitrary lines on maps, cutting peoples and tribal territories in half, it was always "legal." This was the case in the partition of India and the creation of the Kashmir dispute.
It was also the case with areas in the Middle East. The Golan Heights are part of Syria, not because of some ancient legal reason, but because the British and French colonial authorities demarcated the border this way. Neither side of that equation was ever “occupying.” Only when the European countries decided to give “independence” to various states or leave, did international law suddenly swoop in and say that the borders the former powers had drawn would be set in stone. Now any changes were against international law.
The strangest thing is that the partition plan the British and UN left behind in 1947 was unworkable. International status for Jerusalem and a patchwork of areas for two states, one Arab and one Jewish, in what had been British mandate Palestine. Yet the “law” today isn’t entirely based on the 1947 decision. Instead, there was a ceasefire in 1948 and then a war in 1967. International law has a way of swooping in only when changes are made in Israel’s favor.
For instance, there was no “occupation” of Jerusalem or “demographic change” issue between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan ran east Jerusalem. Even though Jews were ethnically cleansed from areas of the Old City, this was not a “demographic change.” When Israel took over Jordanian-occupied east Jerusalem, then international law says the situation in 1967 must be set in stone. Not the situation in 1947 or 1887. How does the law know when to draw the line?
Similarly, it’s not clear why international law often portrays Israel as an “occupier” of Gaza. The Gazans were not consulted on whether they wanted to be occupied by the British or the Egyptians. Yet the “law” seems to only relate to Israel’s temporary control of Gaza and in essence forces Israel to forever be the “occupying power.” This is the same international concept that underpins the Oslo Accords, in a sense abrogating those very accords and making it impossible for Israel to give up control. This is problematic because even if Israel wanted to withdraw from parts of the West Bank and enable a full-fledged Palestinian state, the “law” would always portray Israel as continuing to “occupy” something. This is the case in Lebanon, for instance, where even though Israel withdrew in 2000, Hezbollah continues to accuse Israel of occupying the Har Dov/Sheba’a farms area. It’s hard to imagine a way Israel can ever extricate itself from the endless UN focus, even if it wanted to. The focus on Israel is convenient since it means more contentious issues such as focusing on Turkey’s occupation of Syria, are not spotlighted. Many countries agree to shift the focus to Israel.
The related features of international law, that it is often rooted in arbitrary European colonial power decisions, and in arbitrary dates, create many contradictions. It’s hard not to see it as merely being made up as it goes along to single out Israel. Some of the countries that created the “law” and the chaos of 1948, then condemn Israel for controlling the very thing they created and also refuse to let Israel leave areas they demanded Israel leave. Increasingly this is a tool of countries in the global south and authoritarian regimes. Many western countries do not see the constant focus on Israel as helpful. Some countries have realized that letting Iran and Russia hijack international forums is also no longer helpful. It is unclear if there will be more pushback against these kinds of resolutions and decisions that focus on Israel.
What are possible legal ramifications of an ICJ advisory opinion on Israel?
International Legal Forum CEO and human rights attorney Arsen Ostrovsky, agreed that “Such opinions of the ICJ are non-binding on the parties involved. They are purely of an advisory nature,” but warned that “they do carry considerable moral weight and are regarded highly as a reference point by the legal community, as well as civil society and the United Nations.”
Daphné Richemond-Barak explained that the ICJ advisory opinion “doesn’t obligate a state as such” but the body could urge member states to take action. Member states could use the ruling as a basis to make political decisions. Whether the states’ local courts would use the advisory as legal precedent was not the main concern. The opinion was more relevant in international fora.
“It’s not so much what the opinion is going to say but how it's going to be used in the future,” she said.
Richemond-Barak gave the example of the 2004 ICJ advisory opinion on the security barrier, and how it became the keystone for many reports and resolutions by international bodies. The ICJ’s opinion of the legal consequences Israel’s practices and control of the territories would likely be held in high regard due to the court’s prestige and air of authority.
Shany said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government would have to decide how to approach the ICJ opinion.
“There is always a question about what Israel should do, participate in the process or boycott.” said Shany. “If you don't make your case you may politicize the process but may face a more hostile decision.” He said that in the case of the 2004 advisory opinion on the security barrier, that Israel made a compromise between the two
In response to the ICJ’s 2004 evaluation on the “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” the government submitted a statement challenging the “jurisdiction of the Court and the propriety of any response by it on the substance of the request,” but refused to address the legality of the fence.
According to Shany the opinion could take between 1-2 years to formulate, and in that time, even if the new government doesn’t directly respond to the proceedings, statements made by ministers could influence the decisions. This legal specter could therefore impact the speech of Israeli ministers.
“Although the new process began prior to the new government, the statements made by the ministers will impact the deliberations,” said Shany. Talk of “exclusive rights of Jews over all the territory of Israel, while this may play very well to the home base, in the Hague proceedings could be damaging.”
From Ian:
Dore Gold:
Where is the Middle East heading now?
Dr. Ebtisam Al-Ketbi, who heads the leading research center in Abu Dhabi, the Emirates Policy Center, pointed out that the overlapping crises afflicting the Middle East have made strictly bilateral solutions completely ineffective, which drew the major players in the region to try the Baghdad II mechanism. Perhaps they were thinking about a Middle Eastern version of the Helsinki Process that drew in members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact in 1975 at the height of the Cold War.
But Iran was glued to a policy of exploiting its Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) units as its chosen instrument for spreading its regional influence – not multilateral mechanisms that the strongest party in the room was prepared to ignore. Over the last few years, Iran effectively employed its Houthi allies in Yemen to successfully strike the heart of Riyadh, shutting down for a period of time a significant percentage of Saudi Arabia’s oil production.
Indeed, a Houthi drone attack knocked out half of Saudi Arabia’s oil production in 2019. Iran did not pay a price for this bold action. Clearly, it had little incentive to restrict its behavior, given the tepid regional reaction. In fact, Jordan’s King Abdullah disclosed on CNN in July 2021 that Iranian drones had attacked Jordanian territory in increasing numbers.
For years, Tehran had built up a military presence in Lebanon and Syria. Now, Iran had been showing its interest in spreading its influence into Jordan as well. Jordan was known to be the locale of a number of Islamic holy sites that were significant to both Sunni and Shi’ite Islam. Iran sought to expand its tourism in Jordan to these areas. Some had been battlefields for early Islamic armies when they had their first military engagements with the Byzantine Empire. They were located near what is today the Saudi-Jordanian border.
Some Middle Eastern leaders hoped that today the Iranians could be placated. That might have been another reason to invite the Iranian president to the shores of the Dead Sea in Jordan. Israel will have to monitor very carefully what is happening with its eastern neighbors – both Iraq and Jordan. Israel has intercepted convoys of weaponry crossing from the Iranian border, by land, to Syria and Lebanon.
It is logical that Tehran redirects its efforts to create an alternative route via Jordan. If Middle Eastern states can block this axis as well, they can assure the security of the region. But it is not clear at this stage that they will be able to achieve this goal.
To combat antisemitism, collaboration is needed - opinion
With growing displays of hatred for Jews evident among extremists across the ideological spectrum, the space and passive support for antisemitism seem to be growing. Jews are feeling this on the streets of their communities around the world, with record-high levels of antisemitic incidents recorded in 2022.
What has the US done as a result?
In the US, this has prompted Jewish institutions to adopt a European model of stricter security, including armed guards, higher walls and increased surveillance.
These measures, while necessary from a safety perspective, serve as a demoralizing daily reminder to Jews about the concrete threats they face. To identify publicly as a Jew means putting themselves on the frontlines of a battle they did not seek.
Nevertheless, amid this darkening reality, there is also light. While hate against Jews increases, many allies are stepping up to the plate and being counted.
As CEO of the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), a global coalition engaging more than 650 organizations and nearly two million people from different religious, political and cultural backgrounds in the common mission of fighting the world’s oldest hatred, I have witnessed the power of partnership over the past year.
Recently, in Athens, we had more than 60 mayors and other top municipal officials from all over the world convene with the singular purpose of sharing and learning best practices about how to fight antisemitism. One key speaker, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, lamented the fact that antisemitism had become “normalized” and “popular,” and he called out its perpetrators.
Also last month, at the height of the Kanye and Kyrie furor, CAM helped organize the second annual awards ceremony of the Omni-American Future Project, a collaborative partnership strengthening ties between the black and Jewish communities in the US. These are just two recent examples of how prejudice can be countered with the fostering of cross-communal understanding and harmony.
However, this may have been best exemplified by CAM’s final event of 2022, when on the first night of Hanukkah, in the heart of Manhattan, a non-Jewish street artist painted a massive mural of Tibor Baranski, a courageous Hungarian-American who brought light to the world at the darkest moment in human history by rescuing more than 3,000 Jews during the Holocaust.
Of course, the Jews are not facing a Holocaust today, but we are under attack from an expanding number of hostile sources. To beat this network of hate, we must build, joined by our friends and all good people of conscience, an unbreakable web of togetherness, fraternity and comradeship.
Our enemies are gaining in strength, but so are our allies, and we must remember this. To turn the tide of rising hatred, we must reach more people who will stand by our side and say, “Enough!”
This is how we combat antisemitism.
Happy 50th anniversary of the Dry Bones cartoons
Yaakov Kirschen drew his first Dry Bones cartoon for The Jerusalem Post’s January 1, 1973, edition, and he never stopped. For 50 years, Dry Bones cartoons have been a beloved part of the Anglo Jewish world. Many children of English-speaking olim (immigrants to Israel) grew up in homes with faded Dry Bones cartoons that their parents had taped to the wall. Dry Bones cartoons have been mailed, shared, quoted, and forwarded between English-speaking Israelis, Christian Zionists, and our far-flung and embattled Jewish communities in the Diaspora.
Kirschen has made the lives of Anglo olim easier and more meaningful, and to his fans all over the world he has spread a deeper and stronger feeling for Israel and Zionism.
The Dry Bones cartoonist, who has been called a “national treasure of the Jewish people,” has received many awards, such as the Nefesh B’Nefesh Bonei Zion Award and The Golden Pencil Award.
From Ian:
Caroline Glick:
Where the Netanyahu government differs from its predecessor
Over the course of the campaign, and in a steadily escalating fashion as he prepared to return to office, Netanyahu has spoken enthusiastically about the prospect of reaching a peace agreement that will formalize Israel’s relations with Saudi Arabia. Those still sub rosa relations were the foundation of the Abraham Accords.
The rationale for a Saudi deal is overwhelming for both countries. Leaving aside the economic potential of such an agreement—which is massive—the strategic implications are a game changer. An Israeli-Saudi normalization agreement, like the agreements Israel concluded with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan in 2020, is a means to withstand the Biden administration’s realignment away from America’s allies and towards Iran. By strengthening its bilateral ties with the Arab states bordering Iran and other key states in the region, Israel expands its strategic footprint and is capable of developing defensive and offensive capabilities by working in cooperation with likeminded governments. By working with Israel openly, Saudi Arabia sends a clear message to Iran and its people that Saudi Arabia will not be cowed into submission by the regime that is currently brutalizing its youth.
Netanyahu has already made a statement in support of the revolutionaries in Iran. At this point, with most experts assessing that Iran has crossed the nuclear threshold and has enough enriched uranium to produce up to four bombs per month, it is obvious that Biden’s nuclear diplomacy has nothing to do with nuclear non-proliferation.
There are only two ways to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state—direct action targeting Iran’s nuclear installations and regime change. Netanyahu’s willingness to stand up to the Biden administration and stand with the Iranian people and Israel’s regional partners makes regime change more likely, and direct action against Iran’s nuclear installations more likely to succeed.
Over the two months since the Israeli elections, the opposition and its supporters on the Israeli and American Jewish left have stirred up hysteria by claiming that the most significant distinction between the Lapid-Gantz government and the Netanyahu government centers on social policies related to non-religious Jews. This claim is false, and maliciously so. The Netanyahu government has no intention—and never had any intention—of curtailing the civil rights of non-religious Jews. Their goal is to expand civil and individual rights, by among other things, placing checks and balances on Israel’s hyper-activist Supreme Court and state prosecution.
There are many differences between the previous government and the Netanyahu government. None of them have to do with civil rights. The main distinction is that the Netanyahu government has made securing Israel’s national interests its central goal in foreign and domestic policy. Its predecessors were primarily interested in getting along with the hostile Biden administration, under all conditions. Netanyahu and his ministers will work with the Biden administration enthusiastically, when possible.
Jonathan Tobin:
Can US Jews love the real Israel—or only the fantasy version?
For the first decades of Israel’s existence, the above differences with Americans were papered over by the dominance of Labor Zionism, whose universalist rhetoric meshed nicely with liberal sensibilities, even if the security policies it pursued did not. But even in its most idealized form, a particularistic project such as Zionism has been a difficult sell for American Jews, the overwhelming bulk of whom see sectarian concerns not only as antithetical to their well-being, but possibly racist, as well.
Having found a home in which they were granted free access to every sector of American society, and in which the non-Jewish majority proved willing to marry them, they unsurprisingly have had difficulty coming to terms with an avowedly ethno-religious state with such a different raison d’être.
Moreover, an American-Jewish population in which the acceptance of assimilation has created a large and fast-growing group the demographers call “Jews of no religion” is bound to take a dim view of a country that specifically defines itself as a Jewish state, no matter how generous its policies toward the Palestinians or the non-Orthodox denominations might be. If many American Jews are no longer certain that their community’s survival matters, how can one possibly expect them to regard the interest of Israeli Jews in preserving their state against dangerous foes with anything but indifference?
Many Jews talk about their willingness to support a nicer, less nationalist and religious Israel than the one that elected Netanyahu and his allies. They support efforts by Democrats to pressure it to make suicidal concessions to Palestinians who, whether Americans are willing to admit it or not, purpose Israel’s elimination. They also want it to be more welcoming to liberal variants of Judaism that Americans practice, and for the Orthodox have less influence.
But even if you think those changes would make Israel better or safer, a majority of Israelis disagree. So, while much of the criticism is framed as a defense of democracy to sync with Democratic Party talking points that smear Republicans, there’s nothing democratic about thwarting the will of a nation’s voters or seeking to impose a mindset they regard as alien to their needs.
The challenge for liberals is not just how to cope with an Israel led by Netanyahu, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, or to put aside the partisan hyperbole branding it as a fascist or fundamentalist tyranny. It’s accepting the fact that Israel is not a Middle Eastern variant of the blue state enclaves where most American Jews live.
They need to grasp that simple, but still difficult-to-accept concept and forget about the Israel of liberal fantasies. If they can, it should be easy for them to understand that no matter who is running Israel—or how its people think, worship or vote—the sole Jewish state’s continued survival is still a just and worthy cause.
Ruthie Blum:
Israel’s new government and ‘Pauline Kael syndrome’
Following the late and former US president Richard Nixon’s landslide re-election in 1972, New Yorker magazine film critic Pauline Kael voiced a mixture of dismay and surprise.
“I live in a rather special world,” she commented. “I only know one person who voted for [him]. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater, I can feel them.”
Her famous acknowledgment of existence in an elitist bubble, insulated from a faceless mass of aliens lurking menacingly in the shadows, may have been irritating, but at least it was honest. It also perfectly described the chasm between the chattering classes and the majority of the voting public.
Though this type of divide in the West tends to be viewed and treated as political – since it’s inevitably expressed at the ballot box – it’s actually more cultural in nature. The response in Israel and abroad to the outcome of the November 1 Knesset election is a case in point.
What were the reactions to Netanyahu's coalition?
The initial shock and subsequent hysteria surrounding the emergence of Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu’s “full, full right-wing” coalition has been emanating from circles of the Pauline Kael variety. To them, it’s worse than irrelevant that the new government in Jerusalem is the result of the people’s clear choice; they call the rejection of the Left’s increasingly woke post-Zionism “undemocratic” and a sign of societal downfall.
Such baseless charges on the part of the “anybody but Bibi” camp would be funny if they weren’t welcomed so heartily by those in the international community who delegitimize the Jewish state, regardless of its leadership, and by fellow travelers putting Israel on perpetual probation. Take the hundreds of American rabbis (none Orthodox, of course) who signed “A Call to Action for Clergy in Protest of Israeli Government Extremists,” for instance.
From Ian:
Melanie Phillips:
Happy inclusive holidays!
What a minefield this whole identity thing is. Thank goodness Chanukah doesn’t present this problem, eh?
For many diaspora Jews, Chanukah is regarded as Christmas-lite with gifts, diet-destroying delicacies and a lighted menorah in place of a glittering tree.
And there can hardly be much danger of offending anyone with a card displaying a chanukiah, dreidel or doughnut, or standard anodyne message such as “Festival of lights”, “Love, light, latkes” or “Peace, love and miracles”.
Hold on a minute. Chanukah is not actually a festival of peace and love. It celebrates instead the victory of the Maccabees who went to war against both the Seleucid Greeks and the Hellenists, Jews who were themselves drawn to the pagan ways of their Greek overlords.
The Maccabees were not apostles of peace. They were more like resistance commandos, fierce and uncompromising warriors who fought their Greek oppressors.
Moreover, they also committed violent atrocities against the Hellenised Jews who had absorbed Greek universalism and as a result had taken aim at circumcision, Shabbat observance and Torah study.
The Maccabees regarded those overly-assimilated Jews as traitors to Judaism and dealt with them accordingly.
In the saccharine world of much Chanukah observance, the Maccabees are commonly presented as heroes fighting and defeating the tyrannical Greeks. This was undoubtedly true.
But other commentators equally plausibly describe them as zealots, violent religious extremists who forced Jews to conform to a strict interpretation of Judaism and expelled non-Jews from the land. To the Hellenised Jews, they were religious nuts.
Ring any bells? Today, many diaspora Jews (and liberal Israelis) are hyper-ventilating over the likely inclusion in the new Israeli government of three men whose agenda has distinct echoes of the Maccabees.
Itamar Ben-Gvir, the putative security minister, called in his younger days for the expulsion of the Arabs from Israel (although he says he has changed his views). Bezalel Smotrich, tipped as a finance minister, has said his ultimate aim is an Israeli theocracy.
And Avi Maoz, who is set to run an office of “Jewish identity”, has taken explicit aim at the “Hellenising Jews” of the Israeli left and progressive denominations whom he terms “the real darkness”.
Celebrating the Maccabees might therefore be seen as celebrating Ben-Gvir, Smotrich and Maoz.
Well that’s the end of Chanukah cards, then.
PMW:
Jesus the Palestinian terrorist and his 72 dark-eyed virgins
One of the many ways in which the Palestinian Authority distorts history in order to invent a centuries-old Palestinian identity, is to turn Jesus the Judean (Jew), who promoted peace on earth, into a Palestinian terrorist who was murdered by the Israelis, thus becoming the first Palestinian “Martyr,” who is now reveling in heaven with Allah, in the arms of 72 dark-eyed virgins.
While the language the PA uses to describe Jesus as a terrorist and as someone enjoying his virgins is less direct, the meaning is the same.
When referring to Palestinian terrorists, the PA calls them “self-sacrificing fighters,” or “fidai”. So, when the PA and its officials use the same terms to describe Jesus, they are in fact saying he is a terrorist.
As Palestinian Media Watch has shown, here, here, here, here, and here, among other places, the definition of Jesus as a terrorist enjoying his virgins is not a fringe idea, but rather one expressed by the highest order in the PA.
Jesus the “Palestinian” terrorist murdered by the Jews
When PA Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh sought to declare Jesus a terrorist, and link him to Palestinian terror, he referred to him as a “Palestinian self-sacrificing fighter” who, similar to the PA descriptions of suicide bombers, “paid for his mission with his life” and whose birth takes place “at the same time as the anniversary of the outbreak of the Palestinian revolution” – i.e the anniversary of the first Fatah terror attack:
“The birthday of our lord Jesus, peace be upon him - the first Palestinian self-sacrificing fighter from whom we learned Martyrdom-death, and who paid for his mission with his life - takes place at the same time as the anniversary of the outbreak of the Palestinian revolution (i.e., the anniversary of “the Launch” of Fatah, counted from its first terror attack against Israel), for which thousands of Martyrs have paid with their lives so that we will live and remain, and so that our children will dream of a better future.”
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 28, 2020]
Muwaffaq Matar, a member of the Revolutionary Council of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party and regular columnist for the official PA daily similarly adopted Jesus as a Palestinian and compared him to terrorists calling him a “self-sacrificing fighter”:
From Ian:
The Palestinians had a great Thanksgiving; Israel not so much
Over Thanksgiving week, the administration announced the creation of a special representative post focused solely on the Palestinians. This will be an enormous upgrade in relations. A State Department official said, "As the president reiterated in Israel and the West Bank, we remain committed to reopening our Consulate General in Jerusalem and to the vision of a two-state solution."
While the Palestinians are cosseted and rewarded for intransigence and violence, the Biden administration is attacking Israel by upgrading Israel's enemies, undermining its ability to defend itself and calling its democratic bona fides into question.
First, the administration called the Abraham Accords "normalization agreements," rather than the historic peace accords they are. But that was a minor slap compared to the gifts Israel's chief nemesis Iran received. The administration lifted sanctions on Iran's proxy terror organization, the Houthis. It pressured South Korea to free up more than a billion dollars in frozen Iranian funds. It provided sanctions waivers that allowed Iran to sell more oil to China – a boon for both countries.
And the administration did all of this while the US sat outside the room in Vienna where talks on reviving the 2015 nuclear accord are underway. The US, in other words, acted like the pariah Iran should be, and allowed Russia, China and the EU to offer Iran "inducements" to rejoin an agreement Iran has been violating for years. There has been no penalty for stealing US technology, putting it in Iranian drones and exporting the drones to Russia in violation of U.N. sanctions.
In addition, Iran's proxy Hezbollah was gifted with a maritime gas agreement between Israel and Lebanon brokered by the US The Biden administration put heavy pressure on Israel's outgoing government to reach a deal before the Israeli elections. Worst of all was that Israel received unspecified American "security assurances" should Hezbollah attack. This undermined Israel's decades-long policy that it would "defend itself by itself" and not ask the US to provide American soldiers for its security.
The administration also undermined Israel's position as a democratic ally by announcing the opening of an FBI investigation into the battlefield death of an Al Jazeera journalist, having previously accepted the findings of Israeli and Palestinian investigations and declaring the case closed. The announcement brought cheers from the PA, which demanded that the case go to the International Criminal Court.
The only saving grace was that US Ambassador Thomas Nides and President Joe Biden later said they had no idea such an investigation had been ordered by the attorney general. Really? President Biden didn't know? The US has a rogue attorney general?
The Palestinians had a very good Thanksgiving week. The Israelis much less so. Most Americans were too busy to notice.
A Book of Psalms saved a victim's life in Jerusalem terror attack
A man who was seriously injured in Tuesday’s Jerusalem bombing was spared from what could have been a fatal fate by none other than his book of Psalms – or Tehillim in Hebrew – which blocked a shard of debris from piercing his body, said Shaare Zedek Medical Center.
The victim, a 62-year-old man, arrived to Shaare Zedek hospital in serious condition and underwent a series of operations to remove shrapnel from his body.
While the man was recovering, visitors were stunned to discover that he had a book of psalms in his possession that was pierced almost entirely through by a shard of debris resulting from the explosion. The shard hit the back cover of the book and penetrated nearly all the way through – though stopping just short and potentially saving the man’s life.
Coincidence or divine intervention?
The shard penetrated the book up to the 124th chapter of the Psalms before stopping at the line: "Our soul is like a bird that escaped from a box of hardships."
The psalm that the shrapnel stopped is obviously very notable, as the message in the psalm is about being saved from hardship. The bus station bombing in Jerusalem on Tuesday killed two, including a 16-year-old boy, and wounded 18 others – including the fortunate man who had this book of psalms with him.
The IDF’s Judea and Samaria challenge: A spike in attacks and anti-terror raids
‘A synergy of explosive factors can produce a new intifada’
According to Col. (res.) David Hacham, a senior research associate at the MirYam Institute and a former adviser on Arab affairs to seven Israeli defense ministers, the dramatic rise in terrorist incidents is linked to a number of factors.
He detailed the first two as follows: “A rise in violent clashes between the IDF, as well as Israelis in Judea and Samaria, and Palestinians, often leading to casualties. A rise in tensions surrounding the Temple Mount and ongoing Palestinian incitement encouraging violent passions around this issue based on claims that Israel is changing the status quo. This can form a big potential for escalation because it plays on very sensitive strings.”
Terror factions led by Hamas have been promoting murderous incitement on social media using the Temple Mount issue as a key theme to call for attacks on Israelis.
A third factor, said Hacham, is the ongoing and escalating succession battle within Fatah over who will succeed Abbas. “The combination of these elements leads to an atmosphere filled with gasoline fumes, and can lead to an explosion and a new intifada, he warned.
“Other factors include the sense among Palestinians of a lack of any progress in the diplomatic process with Israel and the sense that the PA is unable to make Israel budge here. The Palestinians fear the formation of a new right-wing Israeli coalition that will promote the building of settlements, legalize outposts, build new bypass roads, and create an obstacle to the establishment of a future Palestinian state,” said Hacham.
“They fear the next government will not take the Palestinians into account at all. On the Palestinian side, Abbas, 87, is tired and sick. He is trying to prepare the ground for his chosen successor, Hussein al-Sheikh, whom he appointed as PLO Executive Committee secretary-general in May 2022,” he continued.
Israel has to keep its finger “closely on the pulse of every event in Judea and Samaria, which is at the gates, inside our home. It has to be able to detect and move to prevent negative events such as a Hamas takeover,” Hacham stressed.
Al-Sheikh, unpopular on the Palestinian street, would only acquire legitimacy if he won elections like Abbas did in 2005 to become PA president. “Here, there is an Israeli, Jordanian and Egyptian interest to prevent a civil war between Palestinians and to avoid a scenario in which the militias of the candidates fight each other, which could be dangerous for us,” Hacham added.
Tuesday, January 17, 2023
