Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Netanyahu

Showing posts with label Netanyahu. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 14, 2025

Trump’s Cold Shoulder to Israel: Real or Rumor (Judean Rose)

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

Donald Trump, during his previous administration, brought us the Abraham Accords and established a U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. This time around, Israeli Americans voted for him in droves, there being a general feeling among us that Biden was bad for Israel and Trump the opposite of that. We were frightened for our hostages, needed weapons, and more importantly a strong voice in support of our war on Hamas. Trump appeared to tick all the boxes. We had high hopes.

It began so well. The president gave Israel carte blanche to do as it pleased in Gaza and helped us fight the Houthis. And though there was a feeling that the president was being wildly misled by Qatari puppet Witkoff, he was a good friend to Israel. We appreciated it and were glad we voted for him.

Then rumors of a rift began to flow, a narrative built from a sequence of events. The US would no longer help Israel fight the Houthis. Israel was excluded from the itinerary of Donald Trump’s Middle East tour. Trump accepted a very expensive private plane from Qatar. There was a secret US deal to free Edan Alexander that was in the works for months without Israel’s knowledge. The murmurs that Trump has turned against Israel have been gathering steam. Nobody I know wants to talk about it much, but there is thick nervous tension in the air.

That’s my sense, at least, though I keep looking for articles that prove me wrong. I don’t want to believe there’s a rift. But I don’t like the way Trump kept us out of negotiations for Edan Alexander and made us look weak, made Bibi look ineffectual, not in Trump’s good graces. I do understand that America and Americans come first, but in my view, the way this deal was done was really not cool.

It didn’t help that Edan Alexander’s mother Yael, pointedly thanked everyone but Netanyahu for freeing her son from captivity. Her failure to acknowledge him spoke volumes, especially since the deal was negotiated behind Israel’s back, making Bibi look sidelined.

Witkoff, of course, couldn’t help but rub it in, telling the hostage families that if only Israelis weren’t so divided, we’d be strong, the war would end, and the hostages come home. That was the sense of what he said anyway, if not his actual words.

But not everyone is worried. Ruthie Blum, senior contributing editor at JNS, for example, believes the buzz is baseless. In a recent op-ed, Is Trump Really Turning His Back on Bibi and Israel?, Blum says the gossip comes from two agenda-driven sources, isolationists and anti-Netanyahu Israelis. She also notes “conflicting versions of what is essentially gossip in disguise.”

Blum’s does an able job dissecting all the scuttlebutt. She paints a reassuring picture of how things stand between Israel and President Trump, and points to a recent meeting between Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer with several important members of the Trump team. "Another clue that Washington hasn’t turned its back on Jerusalem is that U.S. Vice President JD Vance, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio (doubling as interim national security advisor) and special Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff were present at the powwow [with Dermer]."

The meeting does suggest that the relationship remains strong. At the same time, JD Vance is a known isolationist, who in October said of the US-Israel relationship, “Sometimes we’re going to have overlapping interests, and sometimes we’re going to have distinct interests. And our interest very much is in not going to war with Iran. It would be a huge distraction of resources. It would be massively expensive to our country.”

I asked Blum if, as she contends, isolationists are responsible for the rumors of a rift, how do we know that JD Vance isn’t leading the charge and what does this portend for the future? Vance may very well be the next president of the United States.

“Had those leaning in an isolationist direction reprimanded Dermer, it would have been a bad sign. We know this didn't happen, however, since it would have been front page ‘news,’ given all the media mudslinging about Dermer's supposedly being "arrogant" and a source of irritation,”

“Nothing so far suggests that there's a rift between Washington and Jerusalem,” said Blum. “And the fact that Trump didn't make Israel part of his Mideast trip this week is actually a good thing. The last thing he needs is for it to appear that America is doing Israel's bidding in the region.”

Ruthie Blum, it seems, is betting on Trump playing a long game, not cutting ties. That makes a lot of sense. That does seem to be the way Trump operates.

But there are other voices. An Arab political analyst, speaking on condition of anonymity, had a completely different take. “Trump is being played by the Islamists. Sadly, he has chosen to align himself with the bad guys. Many Arabs are convinced that he has thrown Israel under the bus and that he could be easily bought with their charm, hospitality and money. This does not bode well for the future of the region, especially because his actions and rhetoric embolden the radical Muslims.”

Wait.
Is Witkoff in Qatar's pocket?https://t.co/Lc80AIjpDx
andhttps://t.co/szajrm4H9S
— Yisrael Medad (@ymedad) January 16, 2025

I think it is true to a degree that Trump is being played by the Islamists. For me, the proof of that is Witkoff’s admission in March that he had been duped by Hamas into thinking they had accepted his proposal to extend the ceasefire when they had no intention of doing so. “I thought we had an acceptable deal. I even thought we had an approval from Hamas. Maybe that’s just me getting duped. I thought we were there, and evidently we weren’t."

Well, duh. Of course you were getting duped. Did you expect fairness and honesty from Hamas?

Witkoff is Trump’s guy on this. Trump trusts Witkoff knows what he’s doing. Ergo, when Witkoff is duped by Hamas, by default so is Donald J. Trump.

Has Trump turned cold toward Israel and its prime minister? Ruthie Blum says no. It’s only a mirage, stirred up by political vultures. Others say Trump is falling for Qatar’s charm and risking a regional firestorm by expressing a willingness to negotiate with Iran. It is unfortunate, but Donald Trump’s weakness for flattery could very well make him ripe for Qatar’s game. Let’s hope the president sees through all the ceremonial fawning and glitz, and understands that it is Israel, and Israel alone, who stands as America’s always faithful ally in the Middle East.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Beyond Bibi: Can Israel Find Its Next Great Leader? (Judean Rose)

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

If you’ve ever been lucky enough to see and hear Netanyahu in person, you’ll know what I mean when I say he is an absolutely mesmerizing speaker. Some years ago, I was in the front row for Bibi’s opening remarks at an event for journalists. It was a smallish room, so that for a moment, the feeling I had that the prime minister was looking directly into my eyes, made me wonder if he really was. But no, I do not think I am that special. Bibi Netanyahu, on the other hand, is especially gifted at public speaking—you feel drawn in like a magnet, even if you’re inclined not to like the guy.

Which brings me to my next point. Among our many pols and MKs I see no one who can step into Netanyahu’s shoes. There’s no one even close to projecting leadership in quite the same way—no one who’s got the charisma to take over.

The fact that Netanyahu has not groomed a successor is a serious problem, and has been for a long time. No one stays in politics forever. No one stays alive forever. That includes Benjamin Netanyahu, despite his excellence as a speaker, his lengthy reign as head of Likud, and despite having held the office of prime minister of Israel for more years than any other past Israeli PM.

Then there is the matter of October 7. Netanyahu may very well have to resign when this is all over. Ronen Bar may be a garbage person who likes to persecute Jews instead of taking his job of protecting the Israeli people seriously, but the buck stops with Bibi. October 7 happened on his watch.

All of this explains why we need to have someone ready for the eventuality of Bibi leaving office. But who knows if grooming a successor would even make a difference. You can’t teach someone to have magnetic eyes and charisma. Those are things you’re born with. Or not.

It’s important to note here that charisma and magnetic eyes have nothing to do with good governance, and certainly doesn’t speak to whether a leader’s policies are worth a damn. But leadership qualities and skills are vital in a prime minister, in particular because of the spotlight the world shines on Israel. The Israeli prime minister has to be able to develop relationships with foreign leaders. He has to be able to connect with presidents and premiers on a personal level—has to make them like him, so they’ll be favorably disposed toward Israel. So he needs to have personality. But he (or she, actually), also needs to speak good English. Bibi does.

A lot of the others do not.

Take Bezalel Smotrich, for example. I really like the guy. I like his policies, in particular the way he is working against illegal Arab building, and the fact that he sticks up for the rights, the safety and the security of all Israeli citizens, including those of us living in Judea and Samaria. More than that, I know he’s a good person.

Bezalel Smotrich (photo: Avi Ohayon / Government Press Office of Israel)

Back in 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that two apartment buildings in Beit El had to be torn down, because they accepted the anti-Israel nonprofit Yesh Din’s claims that the buildings were built without permits on Arab land. There were expulsions, riots, protests. Netanyahu promised to build 300 new buildings instead of the now demolished buildings and ground was broken, but no buildings materialized.

At that point, I took part in a protest outside the Israeli Supreme Court where, with very few exceptions, the protesters were Beit El residents who had been bussed into Jerusalem for the protest. Also there was Bezalel Smotrich. He was speaking to the protesters from inside a tent that had been erected specifically for the event. I couldn’t get anywhere near that tent, such was the size of the crowd. But I liked that Smotrich showed up. I like every politician who shows up at protests against terror or on behalf of settlers and settlements. It means something to me.

Liking someone and their actions, however, doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve got leadership skills. Or decent English. Smotrich has neither. He is neither distinguished-looking nor a commanding speaker.

In fact, Smotrich the politician makes me think of Kamala Harris the politician. Dems liked her without being able to articulate why. Possibly because Harris didn’t articulate any policies. But also because she can’t articulate anything at all. Not even a single coherent sentence. Basically, she was the anti-Trump, because there was no other reason to vote for her.

Happily, that is not the case with Smotrich. Good guy. Good policies. But bland, milquetoast presence. Which is funny considering he is demonized by the left as a far right firebrand. The left went absolutely out of its mind when Israel Bonds invited Smotrich to speak. Little did they know they were in for a treat: Smotrich speaking in such execrable English that it made for absolutely hilarious parodies.

Haaretz writer Refaella Goichman went to town on that speech, noting as I have, that Smotrich is no Bibi:

Smotrich struggled to read large portions of the speech from the paper, which isn’t so bad – not everyone is cut from the same international cloth as Bibi. But at a certain point, when discussing family who had died in the Holocaust, he finally managed to pronounce the word “perished” after several tries (“my entire family preshit? preshade...?”) and smiled proudly to himself.

Screenshot, Haaretz

Listening to the full speech was painful.

Smotrich’s performance went viral. But for all the wrong reasons. There were parodies galore.

@daniellachyani איים בצלאל #סמוטריץ #אנגלית #אנגליתבכיף ♬ original sound - Daniel Lachyani

Contrast and compare Smotrich's disastrous performance with any of Netanyahu’s many eloquently executed speeches to the UN and to Congress. Congress goes nuts over him.

Bibi is brilliant, every time. My political views may align more closely with those of Smotrich. But he’s no Bibi. And I definitely don’t want to see Smotrich go up against Iran.

So just what is it that makes Bibi a leader, Bezalel not? Social psychologist Amy Cuddy, in her 2012 TED Talk, “Your Body Language May Shape Who You Are,” describes the qualities that inspire crowds: expansive postures, steady voices, and piercing gazes that make them appear confident and captivating.

Netanyahu’s tall frame and the magnetic gaze that held me at his speech, echo Ronald Reagan’s warm authority, Margaret Thatcher’s steely resolve, and Winston Churchill’s defiant presence, inspiring public trust. Bezalel Smotrich, whose Judea and Samaria policies I admire, lacks this—his slight build, plain attire, and broken English, mocked in his 2023 Israel Bonds speech, fail to inspire beyond his base.

In Israel’s global arena, fluent English is non-negotiable for any leader to sway Congress or counter Iran, ruling out Smotrich and others who falter. But then there is Nir Barkat, who earned the name "Batman" after he tackled a terrorist to the ground in 2015.

Barkat, a businessman-turned-Jerusalem mayor, offers polished looks and solid English, but his reserved demeanor lacks Bibi’s fire, despite that epic terrorist takedown. Though the subject of many a meme, Barkat is just like every other superhero. You never quite know who you're going to get—to extend the superhero analogy—Superman or a mild-mannered Clark Kent. I want him to project power, but I'm not seeing it.

Just one of many Nir Barkat memes from 2015.

I made this with Grok. Doesn't look like Nir Barkat, but whatever.

With Smotrich’s faint optics, Barkat’s dim spark, and no one else I’d vote for, Netanyahu’s ungroomed successor may well leave Israel feeling and looking leaderless—not a good look for dealing with the threat of a nuclear Iran. Meantime, I watch and wait for a successor to emerge. Someone with that certain something, in addition to perfect English, that projects leadership for all to see.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

At the @NYTimes, things that are normal for every other country become nefarious when Israel does them

In a long New York Times Magazine profile of Benjamin Netanyahu by Ruth Margalit, we see this:

Admirers credit Netanyahu with “changing the paradigm” around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Boaz Bismuth, a Likud lawmaker, told me. Netanyahu did so by effectively bypassing the Palestinians and signing normalization agreements with other Arab countries in the region. But those agreements, known as the Abraham Accords, are the diplomatic end result of an arms deal in which Israel would provide nearly all signatories with licenses to its powerful cybersurveillance technology Pegasus, as an investigation in this magazine revealed last year. “He made use of knowledge and technologies to get closer to dictators,” a former senior defense official told me.

According to this article, the Abraham Accords are just a cover for a cyber-arms deal that enriched a private Israeli firm.

This is an insane perspective. Even though written by a Tel Aviv based Jewish writer, it plays into classic antisemitic tropes. After all, she is saying that the most consequential peace deal in the region in four decades is really about Jewish greed and disregard for human rights.

The Abraham Accords deal resulted in the US selling $23 billion of arms to the UAE. Can you imagine the New York Times claiming that the US only brokered the deal our of greed to enrich US defense contractors?

Every negotiation involves give and take in an attempt to find results that benefit both parties. The Obama-brokered Iran nuclear deal gave Iran the ability to refine uranium after a time period in exchange for short-term pause (that they ignored anyway) If there is a Saudi peace agreement, the US would be giving the Saudis access to nuclear technology which is just as dual-use as spyware is, but on a quite larger scale. The downsides in both cases are merely nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists facilitated by the US.

And every Western, democratic country makes compromises to their own human rights standards in order to maintain relationships with countries whose own human rights records are less than stellar.

But only for Israel are negotiations viewed through such a bizarre lens of how Israeli greed and disregard for human rights is what drives its desire to reach peace agreements with other Middle Eastern countries - countries that all happen to be repressive Muslim and Arab dictatorships to begin with.

And there are more articles in the media against Israel for allowing cyberweapons to be sold than against the regimes that abuse them.

Pegasus is a tool, like a hammer. It has legitimate uses but it also can be abused to attack dissidents, just like bullets or surveillance drones. The New York Times, though, seems to regard spyware as an exclusively Israeli, magical tool. As I noted earlier this week, when similar spyware tools to Pegasus were misused by Greece and Egypt, the New York Times didn't mention that newly blacklisted spyware developers came out of Greece, Hungary, Ireland and North Macedonia - but highlighted that two of them were headed by a former Israeli general.

The hypocrisy doesn't end there. When Israel does put restrictions on dual-use items to be transferred - meaning, when it stops items at the Gaza border that could be used to build missiles and other weapons aimed at Israeli civilians - Israel is blamed by the NYT for unfairly hurting Palestinians for no good reason.

There are no limits to the double standards Israel is subjected to by the New York Times.

(h/t Yisrael Medad)

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Joe Makes the Sign of the Cross to Ward Off the Jew Netanyahu (Judean Rose)

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

After nine months of refusing to extend an invitation to Benjamin Netanyahu to visit the White House, Joe Biden—or his handlers—deemed that a sufficiently long enough period of time had elapsed that said invitation could now be extended. Bibi had been punished and put in his place, the anti-Israel elements of the party appeased. Still, nobody said that Joe had to be nice to the Israeli PM. So as Bibi waxed lyrical about their 40-year acquaintance, and while the cameras were rolling, Biden leered at those in attendance and crossed himself. Slowly and with deliberation.

BREAKING: Meeting on the sidelines of the @UN in New York, @POTUS -- at the outset of remarks by Israeli Prime Minister @netanyahu as the two sat before the U.S. and Israeli flags -- oddly performed the sign of the cross, a ritual Christian gesture. Mr. Biden read from notecards;… pic.twitter.com/MmwQHICVAk
— James Rosen (@JamesRosenTV) September 20, 2023

The press didn’t write about it, with the notable exception of the indefatigable Hunter Biden laptop-reporting New York Post:

President Biden unexpectedly crossed himself Wednesday during a one-on-one meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in Midtown.

The 80-year-old Roman Catholic president made the conspicuous hand gesture — touching his forehead, stomach and left and right breast area with his right hand — as the Jewish leader began speaking.

“We’ve been friends for, I’ve checked it, over 40 years,” Netanyahu said, prompting Biden to make the sign of the cross in a possible joke about his own age.

However, the president did not explain his action and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This was not the first time that Joe Biden made the sign of the cross as an apparent snub or sign of disrespect. He crossed himself while saying Donald Trump’s name as he stumped for Gavin Newsom in 2021. He did it again while ridiculing Marjorie Taylor Greene at an event in Virginia Beach.

President Biden calls out Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) for yelling “Liar!” during the State of the Union and then proceeds to ✝️ himself. pic.twitter.com/8MlMC4WIA0
— The Recount (@therecount) February 28, 2023

How are we supposed to understand Joe Biden’s repeated, cynical use of a religious symbol, an expression of Christian faith? What does it mean in the context of a landmark meeting with the prime minister of the Jewish State? It depends on how you're feeling about Joe these days.

Some think it was insensitive of the president, a stupid move, to cross himself in front of a Jewish leader. Others think that his making the sign of the cross against a Jewish person was just one more manifestation of a riddled brain in a state of advanced decay. Both these things are likely true, but miss the mark by omitting the malign nature of the president’s gesture, meant as a pointed sign of disrespect to someone he really, really does not like.

Was the gesture deliberately antisemitic? That would certainly be a valid conclusion. The sign of the cross has traditionally been used to ward off evil. Biden jokingly uses the symbol to demean public figures he dislikes by equating them with evil. When he therefore makes the sign of the cross in relation to the democratically-elected leader of the one Jewish State, it is not a stretch to understand this as a statement: “Netanyahu the Jew is evil.”

The sign of the cross as a protection against evil is something most of us are familiar with from movies and TV shows, where characters are always waving silver crosses at vampires. But do Christians really believe that the sign of the cross wards off evil? Does Joe Biden?

While perusing materials relating to Christian dogma is not really my thing, especially during the High Holiday season, I found the following, attributed to St. John Chrysostom, 4th-century Preacher and Patriarch of Constantinople, so . . . probably legit:

Never leave your house without making the sign of the cross. It will be to you a staff, a weapon, an impregnable fortress. Neither man nor demon will dare to attack you, seeing you covered with such powerful armor. Let this sign teach you that you are a soldier, ready to combat against the demons, and ready to fight for the crown of justice. Are you ignorant of what the cross has done? It has vanquished death, destroyed sin, emptied hell, dethroned Satan, and restored the universe. Would you then doubt its power?

As a Jew, I don’t believe any of that, like not even a little bit, not even to the very tip of the tip of my pinky. But when Joe Biden makes the sign of the cross, he does so to smear and ridicule those he dislikes by suggesting, perhaps only half-jokingly, that they are evil. This offends me not only on behalf of my PM, my country, and my people, but also on behalf of those who do see the cross as a symbol of their faith. Because when Joe Biden makes the sign of the cross, in the eyes of his co-religionists, he does so not out of belief, but out of disrespect. From a Catholic perspective, he blasphemes.

Of course no one would accuse Joe Biden of being a good Catholic. Joe’s in bad odor with the Church because of his stance on abortion. Famously, Joe Biden was denied communion at a church in South Carolina. But this use of a religious symbol is vulgar and offensive by any human standard no matter your religion, especially in light of the fact that the one misusing the symbol is the leader of the free world.

No matter the Democrat scandal of the day, it’s always tempting to say that if Trump did it, the media would be all over it like white on rice; meanwhile when Biden does it, crickets. Robert Spencer points this out along with the fact that Biden did not make the sign of the cross when meeting Mahmoud Abbas:

To put into perspective how odd this is, imagine if Trump had made the sign of the cross as he was meeting with Netanyahu. There would have been a new round of “Trump is an antisemite” articles in the establishment media. The ADL would have issued another in their long series of furious denunciations of the Bad Orange Man. The gesture would have been portrayed as a recrudescence of the bad old days of blood libels and false accusations against the Jews that culminated in the Holocaust. When Biden does it, on the other hand, no one sees it.

Whatever it was, Biden certainly didn’t make the sign of the cross when he met with his friend Mahmoud Abbas.

I have yet to hear a response or comment from Netanyahu on Biden making the sign of the cross, during their meeting. That’s as it should be. Perhaps in time, Netanyahu will find a way to make his feelings known, but likely only for those who have the ability read between the lines. This 2015 Jeffrey Goldberg piece from the Atlantic, Netanyahu Dodges the Cross does the trick for me:

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is fond of recalling Vice President Joe Biden's suggestion that he nail himself to a very large cross.

It was 2011, and they were in Jerusalem, in Netanyahu's office. Biden was encouraging the prime minister to make a bold leap for peace, and not to waste time on half-measures. "My father always said, 'Don't crucify yourself on a small cross,'" Biden said. Netanyahu laughed. Only Joe Biden, he would tell people later, would travel to Jerusalem to encourage a Jewish prime minister to crucify himself.

What was Netanyahu telling those he regaled with this story? My take is this: Joe Biden told Benjamin Netanyahu to kill himself. And the then vice president traveled all the way to Jerusalem to do so.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Irony of ironies: Palestinians complain about Bibi's map

At the State Department press briefing yesterday, there was this exchange between spokesperson Matthew Miller and Said Arikat of Al Quds:

ARIKAT: I have a quick question on Mr. Netanyahu’s speech at the United Nations at UNGA last Friday. He showed a map that completely erases the Palestinians. I wonder if you saw the map and I wonder if you have any comment on it.

MR MILLER: I did see it. I’m not going to get into any discussion about the map that the prime minister chose to use. I will say that the President has been clear, this administration has been clear that the United States will continue to support a two-state solution.

QUESTION: So it doesn’t bother you at all that the map shows the Palestinians just evaporated and so on? I mean, isn’t that like a cause for concern, a cause for saying “that’s our position and we state it very strongly; there will be no normalization without it or anything of such” – or just maybe a mishap on part of the prime minister?

MR MILLER: I did just state what our position is. In addition to my just stating what our position is, that we support a two-state solution

Whether the US or Palestinians like it, Israel still claims that Judea and Samaria are disputed territories, not occupied, and as such there is nothing wrong with an Israeli map including them as part of Israel before there is a peace agreement. (Admittedly, Gaza should not have been included in this map.)

His map of 1948 that showed an Israel that included the entire British Mandate could arguably include all of the territories because of the legal concept of uti possidetis juris which gave Israel, as the only state that existed after the 1948 war, the presumed borders of the entire Mandate.

But the PLO and the Palestinian Authority have, since 1993, consistently claimed that they accept a two state solution with Israel within what they call the "1967 borders."

Yet their maps consistently show a "Palestine" with no Israel.

Looking through recent photographs on Mahmoud Abbas' Facebook page, we see his receiving a report from the Palestinian Lands Authority which has a logo that erases Israel:

Here's Abbas lighting a torch to commemorate the anniversary of the PLO's founding, with the PLO logo that erases Israel:

Palestinian Media Watch has scores of examples of official Palestinian erasure of Israel.

Every major Palestinian political party has logos that erase Israel.

If they accept the two state solution, and insist that their borders are the "pre-1967" borders and nothing beyond, than what is their excuse for consistently erasing Israel from their maps?

I would say that their hypocrisy is stunning, but it isn't. It is business as usual.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Book review: "(In)sights: Thirty Years of Peacemaking in the Oslo Process" by Gidi Grinstein

Diplomacy and peacemaking is not a smooth process. It requires a huge amount of preparation, planning and flexibility.

It is always illuminating to look behind the scenes of the Oslo process. Gidi Grinstein, the youngest person at Camp David in 2000, is releasing his account of the events that he witnessed as well as his opinions of what to do moving forward to mark the 30th anniversary of Oslo.

His book, "(In)sights: Thirty Years of Peacemaking in the Oslo Process" is his attempt to set the record straight after so many others gave their own versions of what happened at Camp David.

Grinstein writes from the perspective of someone who truly wants to see peace. No one can doubt his love of Israel and Zionism - he was part of the team that founded Birthright Israel - but his perspective is decidedly on the Israeli Left.

I found his account fascinating, but perhaps not for the reasons he intended.

Obviously Grinstein tries to spin the events towards his own politics. Instead of giving a straight chronological account of what happened, he spends a great deal of time on the "sausage" behind each negotiating point and then an overview of what has happened since then, along with his own opinions as to where things failed and what Israel should have done instead, in retrospect.

While Grinstein was the junior member at Camp David, he is perhaps the one person with the most knowledge of the big picture. He served as the Secretary and Coordinator of the Israeli Delegation for the Negotiations with the PLO from 1999-2001 under Ehud Barak.

Grinstein admires Barak a great deal, but his description of Barak is of someone who is cold and calculating, who is more than willing to throw his own people under the bus for his own ends. He keeps his own cards close to his vest, so no one working for him has a clear idea of what their goals are. Grinstein extols Barak as "the smartest man in the room" who keeps his people working in a "matrix" of smaller tasks, while only Barak knows his real plan. This means that Barak creates his own backchannels to undermine the people officially working for him when he deems it necessary, he bypasses the chain of command, and he ensures plausible deniability.

Which, when you think about it, is a lot like Yasir Arafat.

Before he worked for the Prime Minister's office, Grinstein worked for the Economic Cooperation Foundation. The ECF, founded in 1990, was itself one of those backchannels for creating relationships with, and building a peace plan with, the PLO. It was a power that helped bring about the Oslo Accords.

To me, one of the most jarring parts of the book was where Grinstein describes how the ECF helped end Bibi Netanyahu's first term as prime minister. The ECF, which worked hand in glove with Yitzchak Rabin, opposed Netanyahu - and this Israeli think-tank colluded with the PLO to bring him down. Netanyahu demanded more concessions from the PLO in order to keep the Oslo process going, and the ECF convinced their friends in the PLO to pretend to agree to Netanyahu's demands, prompting him to sign the Hebron Agreement and the Wye River Memorandum based on lies. This caused the right wing of his coalition to revolt and new elections were called that brought Barak into office, just as the ECF intended.

Grinstein seemingly has no compunction about Israelis collaborating with the US and PLO to bring down an Israeli prime minister. The cause of peace justifies all.

Even Grinstein admits that the peace negotiators never really seriously thought about the possibility that Arafat had no intention to really sign a permanent agreement that would end the conflict and what would follow. They became friends with the PLO negotiators, and he lovingly describes how well his team would be treated when they visited Bethlehem or Ramallah and the personal friendships they struck up with the Palestinian team. He mentions and is fully aware of the wave of terror attacks during the 1990s, Arafat's incendiary speeches in Arabic, his actions being fully consistent with his "phased plan" to destroy Israel, but all of that is brushed aside in the pursuit of peace, just as using underhanded methods to bring down an Israeli prime minister is framed as a positive thing.

The only person who predicted the failure of the Oslo process, and that it would lead into war, was US Ambassador to Egypt Daniel Kurtzer, who hosted the negotiators for a Shabbat dinner. He had better insight than the entire Israeli peace delegation, who didn't even consider this.

Barak bet everything on the idea that Arafat could be pressured into signing an agreement. He was wrong. But there is very little hand-wringing on that mistake that brought about the second intifada. In fact, Grinstein emphasizes that Arafat was not the direct instigator of the intifada - even as he admits that Arafat had planned for such an event months ahead of time, and that his own security forces, trained and armed by the US, turned their weapons against Israeli forces in the first days of the fighting. He emphasizes that Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount that supposedly triggered the war was fully coordinated with the PA but still doesn't blame the PA for its role - instead noting that the Jerusalem police response to the violence helped escalate it.

Again, Grinstein isn't blind. But he seems to purposely keep one eye closed.

Similarly, he emphasizes that, in retrospect, Barak should not have pushed for an all or nothing deal, and worked towards a provisional Palestinian state that could be further refined with later negotiations. This, of course, would have been a huge concession by Israel to recognize a Palestinian state up front. But while he praises the Quartet for employing that idea in their Road Map for Peace, he glosses over that the Palestinian leaders rejected the Road Map out of hand, and have consistently said that they do not want a provisional state.

Also jarring is that, as far as I can tell, the Israeli peace negotiating teams -- both Track I and Track II - apparently were exclusively made up of non-religious males, overwhelmingly if not exclusively Ashkenazic. He notes that the only Israeli woman at Camp David was a secretary. He never mentions that any of the participants in the many meals hosted in the West Bank or Europe had to make accommodations for kosher food. Most of Israeli society is not represented by these peacemakers, who all seem to believe that they are smarter than anyone else in how to look at the big picture, and not really self-critical when it comes to their miscalculations and false assumptions that led to the failure of the peace process. Diversity was not a priority for these liberals.

There is a lot of good information in this book, and it is illuminating - sometimes in ways that it is not meant to be. It is not edited well, unfortunately - for example, it talks extensively about the ECF without explaining what it is, and there are still numerous typos and misspellings (French Premier "Shirak"), it repeats the same anecdotes a couple of times. Hopefully these will be fixed by the time it goes to press.

The book is planned to be released in Israel in two weeks and in the US in December.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Did Ehud Barak plan the mass protests in Israel years before "judicial reform" in a bid to return to power?

Akiva Bigman in Mida writes that Ehud Barak had been planning to bring Benjamin Netanyahu down via mass protests long before the judicial reform issue was brought up.

Ehud Barak is a central figure in the protest movement against judicial reform. If you have been following the media, you may get the impression that although he is adamantly against Netanyahu and judicial reform, he is merely providing commentary and interpreting events. The reality is the opposite. Do not be deceived by his age or because he is a former prime minister and supposed elder statesman. At 81 years old, Barak is one of the main architects behind the current mass demonstrations. Yet, his involvement goes deeper. Barak is not only orchestrating today’s mass demonstrations, he has been integral in forming the anti-Bibi movement over the past seven years.

Recently, a chilling video of a Zoom conversation was circulated in which Barak describes a scenario of how he will return to power. He mentions that he has a friend, a historian, who told to him that he will become Prime Minister again when there are “bodies floating in the Yarkon river” of Jews murdered in a civil war. Barak immediately said that this should never happen. Yet, that he would mention such a grotesque idea, a truly horrifying scenario is disturbing. Moreover, this comment was made to a forum whose whole raison d’être is to get rid of Netanyahu and explore ideas on how to implement such a plan. Perhaps this was a slip of the tongue, or maybe it was said by someone whose purpose in orchestrating these protests is about his own return to power.

Nonetheless, the Zoom conversation video containing the “bodies in the Yarkon river” comment actually occurred in 2020 during the Corona pandemic, years before judicial reform became a legislative issue. Meaning, the notion that it is specifically judicial reform that is bothering Barak, or the people he is guiding, is bogus. And the fact that Barak was having conversations with those who raised the idea of mass civil disobedience only serves to reinforce Barak’s role in guiding these protests.

Barak's words in the 2020 video sure sounds like a blueprint for the protests happening today, especially using the word "democracy" as a slogan.

But he had been saying the same thing since 2016:

These are Barak’s words at the Herzliya conference, pay attention to the recurring motifs that he still talks about today:
“We have been led for more than a year by a prime minister and a government that is weak, limp and all talk, even according to senior members of its coalition, deceitful and extremist, that fails repeatedly, in guaranteeing security, undermining the fabric of democracy in Israel, failing in managing diplomatic relations with the United States and in stabilizing Israel’s position in the world… Here, I call on the government to come to its senses and immediately get back on track. If you don’t do that, we will all have to get up from our comfortable and less comfortable seats – and overthrow it, through a popular protest and through the voter’s ballot – before it’s too late.”

These are the components of Ehud Barak’s second political comeback: de-legitimization of the government, a deep animus towards Bibi and therefore the slogan ‘anything-but-Bibi’, and mass demonstrations.

Bigman's article goes on to bring other evidence to bolster this thesis.

Could this be true?

I am reading a pre-release edition of "(In)sighrs: Thirty Year of Peacemaking in the Oslo Process" by Gidi Grinstein. Grinstein was the secretary and youngest member of the Israeli delegation at Camp David in 2000 and his book is an account of the negotiations at the time. He worked for the Barak government during his premiership and famously used the Heimlich maneuver when Barak was choking at Camp David.

Grinstein loves Ehud Barak. He was "blown away" by Barak's speeches. He describes him as "the smartest man in the room" who manages to break down complex problems into a "matrix" of small tasks. He describes Barak's political brilliance in building a coalition as well as in his ambitious attempts to accomplish three things in a short time period - a peace deal with Syria, withdrawal from Lebanon whether negotiated or unilateral, and then peace with the PLO, all before Clinton would leave office.

But, whether Grinstein realizes it or not, Barak comes off as a jerk in this book. His "matrix" of things to be done were all in his head and he wouldn't share his strategy or plans with anyone. On the contrary, Barak would instruct his PLO negotiating team to continue their work even as he sabotaged their progress because he wanted to work on the other tracks first. Grinstein admits this: chief negotiator Dr. Oded Eran was a serious expert who led the team, but he was a "pawn in Barak's masterplan" whose hands were politically tied by Barak, and Barak then built his own secret negotiating team, completely leaving Eran out of the loop.

This was hardly the only example where Barak would throw people under the bus because he thought he was the only one brilliant enough to see the big picture - and to maintain his power. There was no chain of command in Barak's government, and the only possible result in such a system is chaos. Grinstein himself admits that one day Barak asked him to leak information to the New York Times, bypassing his boss, and leaving him in an uncomfortable position. Official positions were circumvented by Barak's personal backchannels. No one knew their real roles. Everyone working for Barak was a chess piece for his ambition, not a human being. Barak comes off as a paranoid, power-mad Machiavellian far more than the wise peacemaker Grinstein tries to position him as.

The theory that Ehud Barak is the force behind the protests today in a bid to regain power, when he cannot hope to do so by democratic means, is entirely consistent with the Ehud Barak described in a book that adores him.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

The "extreme right wing Israeli government, left wing Supreme Court" narrative has been upended

Something happened this week that completely contradicts everything you've been reading about the current Israeli government - and the High Court.

From Haaretz

:The Supreme Court should reject a petition demanding the eviction of residents of the Palestinian village of Khan al-Ahmar, because the eviction involves “diplomatic and security considerations” that should be made by the Israeli government, according to a brief filed on Monday by Israel.

The government explained that it does eventually plan to carry out the demolition orders issued against the village, but wants to decide for itself when and how to do so.

Hold on. Isn't this the "most right wing government in Israeli history"? Isn't the Supreme Court the last liberal holdout against total right-wing dictatorship?

As far as I can tell, over the years the Supreme Court has upheld the legality and importance of evacuating the illegal squatters on Area C land that was part of a military firing zone. And the governments of Israel have been trying to avoid that evacuation.

In other words, the exact opposite of what the narrative is. Not once since this whole thing went to court over the past ten years has the Supreme Court ruled that the residents have the legal right to remain there or that the State of Israel does not have the right to evict them from their illegally built homes.

And the State of Israel has always petitioned to delay the demolition, at least until a plan is agreed to for the residents to move - knowing quite well that the illegal squatters will never agree to move anywhere.

Meaning that Netanyahu is more left wing than the Supreme Court, and those who support the Supreme Court's independence should be supporting the demolition of Khan al-Ahmar - if they are being consistent, that it.

Reality is a lot different from the simplistic narratives in the media. And politics beats out supposed "principles" every time.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Noa Tishby: The Special Envoy Who Never Was (Judean Rose)

I want to talk about Noa Tishby. But not for too long. Because she doesn’t deserve that much attention and her story doesn’t deserve that much air.

Noa Tishby is an actress who used an official platform, granted her by an Israeli prime minister, Yair Lapid, to blacken the name of the State of Israel in the public sphere. She did so by writing a damning, nay treasonous article about the Netanyahu government in Ynet.

From the JNS:

Last month, Tishby wrote in a Hebrew-language article in Ynet of the reform initiative, “I will say it in the sharpest and clearest way: Diaspora Jewry and Israel’s supporters in the world are shocked. They are shocked.

“With great pain they look and see how the country they fiercely defended—in Congress, in the media, on the networks or in front of foreign—is changing its face.” This is “not a reform, but a coup,” she added.

Noa Tishby is entitled to her opinions, but not to air them. Because her appointment as “first-ever Special Envoy for Combating Antisemitism and Delegitimization” was to a diplomatic position. She was/is supposed to be speaking well of the democratically elected government of the Jewish State not only for the duration of her tenure as envoy, but forever after. Once a diplomat, always a diplomat. To be or do anything else is more than just bad form—it’s to betray your country and your mission, and show yourself a fraud.

She was always a fraud. A “defender” who hands the world moral permission on a platter to engage in “legitimate criticism of Israel” thus giving license to legions of antisemites to bash Israel. And if everyone can bash Israel, why shouldn’t she, Noa Tishby, in her capacity as “first-ever Special Envoy for Combating Antisemitism and Delegitimization?”

When I heard that she spoke out against judicial reform, calling it a “coup,” I said to myself, alone in the privacy of my bedroom, “FIRE. HER. A**.”

And that’s exactly what Netanyahu did. He fired an actress (Noa Tishby) who had been appointed by a high school dropout (Yair Lapid) to defend the State of Israel and the Jews.

Dear Friends,

It is with disappointment and sadness, but an enduring determination, that I can confirm that the current Israeli government has dismissed me as Special Envoy for Combating Antisemitism and the Delegitimization of Israel.

It is not possible for me to know if their… pic.twitter.com/Yt4c7v5str
— (((noa tishby))) (@noatishby) April 2, 2023

Yes, it was a tall order and no. Noa Tishby couldn’t do it. She’s an actress. Not a trained diplomat. Not some great thinker—no matter how hard the Lapid government tried to rebrand her as a “thought-leader.”

To be fair, the former envoy isn’t “just” an actress. Noa Tishby is also (if one might legitimately criticize her—it’s just an opinion, that's okay, right?) a traitor, a sell-out, and a latter-day version of Benedict Arnold. Only Jewish.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Palestinian foreign ministry warns that Israel planning a Gaza war after Passover, threatens any nation supporting Israel

In a highly unusual press release, the Palestinian foreign ministry warned that Israel was about to embark on a war against Gaza, and asked foreign countries to pressure Israel not to do it.

The statement, released Sunday, says:

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates warns of the results and repercussions of any imminent Israeli military aggression against our people in the Gaza Strip, as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu believes that the military aggression on the Gaza Strip is his political savior, given that the opposition will stand with him in that military confrontation, which will weaken or even stop the opposition campaign against him.

The Ministry warns the international community of the danger of what Netanyahu will do after the end of the Jewish holidays, and calls for proactive international positions to prevent these crimes from being committed against the innocent Palestinian people, particularly in the Gaza Strip, including restoring the policy of assassinations against Palestinian leaders there.

The Ministry affirms that the Palestinian people will not accept, this time, the bias of some countries to the position of the occupying and apartheid state on this upcoming aggression in favor of the occupying state, and to give the occupying state unacceptable protection by claiming its right to self-defense despite it being a country of aggression, occupation, crime and siege.

Does the foreign minister have access to some information that Israeli media does not? Or is it trying to engage in psychological warfare?

Perhaps it is trying to take credit if no war takes place in the next month, telling the world that its pressure stymied Israeli plans.

Notice the threat that they will not accept any nation taking Israel's side and saying that Israel has a right to self-defense. What exactly does that mean? Are they threatening diplomatic action - or are they threatening terror attacks?

Palestinian media and pundits are puzzled over this statement as well. But no one seriously thinks that the MOFA has inside information.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

The hysteria over the Israeli government is far worse than anything the government is remotely likely to do

From Time, in a two page print story:

Israel is no longer a liberal democracy. As Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government took office on 29 December, its illiberalism was evident. No longer a matter for debate or polite embarrassment, the contempt for liberal ideas brings all the disparate factions together: against the media and intellectuals and increasingly against the old Western-inspired Israeli political system and the existing Israeli constitution, including its Basic Laws.

This is really getting crazy.

Nothing has happened.

The government is not going to reduce the rights of gay people. It is not going to impose a theocracy on Israel. It is not becoming a dictatorship.

Wikipedia defines a liberal democracy as:

Liberal democracy is the combination of a liberal political ideology that operates under a representative democratic form of government. It is characterized by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either codified (such as in the United States) or uncodified (such as in the United Kingdom), to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract.

Nothing is happening to remotely change Israel's status to anything other than a liberal democracy.

The only argument that critics can make is that the proposed judicial reforms give too much power to the legislative branch, but now most people recognize that the judicial branch - which can dismiss government officials for literally no reason except what it considers "reasonable" - has far too much power as an unelected branch of government. Perhaps the proposed reforms go too far in some specific ways, but the general idea of reforms is quite reasonable and hardly the earth shattering change that they are being portrayed as.

Everyone agrees there should be a balance of power. The only disagreement is where to draw the line. It is an important debate, but it is hardly a real crisis that threatens Israel's democratic character.

(In fact, one can argue that Israel is more of a liberal democracy than either the US or UK. Universal suffrage for citizens is a key component of any liberal democracy, but unlike Israel, the US and UK do not allow many or most citizens who are prisoners to vote. Is that a crisis? Where are the front page articles about this?)

It seems to me that the over the top reaction to the Israeli elections are more dangerous than anything the government itself is likely to do. Over the weekend, we saw direct, public incitement to violence from Israeli liberals.

Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai spoke at a demonstration against the government and said: "This is the opportunity to reach broad agreements, and if the words end, the actions will begin. We will not stop at protests, we will not be indifferent, we will not react with resignation."

And:

David Hodek, a commercial lawyer who won a Medal of Courage, one of the Israeli military’s highest awards, for his conduct as a tank officer in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, told the Israel Bar Association’s annual conference in Eilat that “if someone forces me to live in a dictatorship and I have no choice, I won’t hesitate to use live fire.”

Hodek, who was speaking on a panel, appeared to make clear he was not talking metaphorically, saying: “People are willing to fight with weapons. Everyone is aghast [at such statements]. They say ‘How can you say such a thing?’ I’m saying it. If I’m forced to go there and they drag me there, that’s what I’ll do.”

And:

Ze'ev Raz, one of the leaders of the Balfour protest and a former fighter pilot, backtracked on what appeared to be a call to assassinate Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday. Raz was a pilot who participated in a reactor bombing operation in Iraq in 1981, which is known as Operation Opera.

"If a sitting prime minister assumes dictatorial powers, this prime minister is bound to die, simply like that, along with his ministers and his followers.

He continued by arguing that Israel should integrate 'din rodef' (a concept in Jewish law that allows for the killing of an individual who intends to kill or harm others).

"My din rodef rules that if my country is taken over by a person, foreigner or Israeli, who leads it in an undemocratic manner, it is obligatory to kill him...it is better to kill the criminals first."

These threats and incitement are a far bigger danger to Israel's democracy than the most extreme things the government is proposing. They are normalizing violence as a means to change government policy. That is the definition of terrorism.

And they come from the constant incitement in world media.

Losers of elections should spend their time convincing voters to support them next time, not threatening to assassinate the elected leaders.

I have plenty of problems with Netanyahu, and some of the optics of judicial reform are less than ideal, but he is not a dictator. He is not a racist. He has (with next to no publicity) done more for Arabs in Israel than any previous prime minister, bar none.

Step back. Take a a breath. And if you care about Israel's future, fight for it using all legal means. Debate it using facts, not hyperbole.

When people demonize political opponents, to the point that prominent people literally threaten violence to get their way, everyone loses.

(h/t Yoel)

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!