Showing posts with label Yair Lapid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yair Lapid. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 19, 2023


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.


 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!

 

 



Sunday, March 12, 2023

From Arab News:

There was controversy in Lebanon on Friday after a document on the demarcation of maritime borders appeared to suggest the country had recognized the neighboring state of Israel.

Talks have been ongoing between the two nations for some time amidst a backdrop of broader political tensions, with a state of war technically existing between them.

Possibilities of a thaw in relations have also been hindered by the influence of strongly anti-Israel factions in Lebanese politics, especially the Iran-affiliated Hezbollah.

The document in question, recorded as No. 71836 and published on the UN’s official website, said that “the secretary–general of the United Nations hereby certifies that the following international agreement has been registered with the secretariat in accordance with article 102 of the charter of the United Nations … constituting a maritime agreement between the state of Israel and the Lebanese Republic (with the letters, Oct. 18, 2020) Jerusalem, Oct. 27, 2020 and Baabda Oct. 27, 2022.”

One activist told Arab News on condition of anonymity: “The UN document is undeniably clear; Lebanon recognized the state of Israel, and Hezbollah’s role has become limited to protecting the common borders.”

Here is the UN document that is upsetting them so much:


At the time, Lebanon took pains to say that this is not recognition:

A letter approving the deal was first signed by Lebanese President Michel Aoun in Beirut and then by Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid in Jerusalem. 

Lapid claimed that Lebanon's signing of the deal amounted to a de-facto recognition of Israel.

In a palace statement after he signed the agreement, Aoun said the deal would have "no political dimensions or impacts that contradict Lebanon's foreign policy."

"The agreement... will take the form of two exchanges of letters, one between Lebanon and the United States, and one between Israel and the United States," said Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for the UN Secretary General.

Lebanon, which has fought a series of wars with Israel, said it would not allow its delegation to be in the same room as the Israeli side, and the two parties would not even sign the same piece of paper.

Rafic Chelala, a spokesman for the Lebanese presidency, confirmed that the Lebanese delegation "will not... meet the Israeli delegation". 
This latter article seems to contradict itself - was it one letter signed by both Israel and Lebanon in separate places, or as it two letters between each of them and the US? 

I cannot find official copies of the letters from last October to see if both signatures are on the same page. Based on this Times of Israel article with the text of the letters, it does not appear that Lebanon recognized Israel in any way. But I cannot claim to know much about international treaty law. 

Either way, it is fun to see the freak-out.





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!

 

 

Wednesday, January 11, 2023




“As weak as Netanyahu is, he must, at least this time, stand up and tell [MK Itamar Ben Gvir], ‘You are not going to the Temple Mount.’ People will die,” said Lapid, and when he said it, I cringed.

There are some things you just don’t say.

Of course, Ben Gvir did go to the Temple Mount and no one died. But that doesn’t make it any less a godawful disgusting thing to say out loud. Most people know better than to say such things. But for a Jew in particular to say such things is beyond the pale—especially for a Jew with power and a podium.

Which may be the point. Lapid should never have been in power and now he isn’t. All of Israel knows how the outgoing government got into bed with the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Raam Party in order to unseat Bibi. The outgoing government didn’t care that their path to power was contrary to the will of the people, because the outgoing government didn’t, and doesn’t care about the Israeli people—it also doesn’t understand them.

In some circles, Israelis won’t even whisper the word “cancer.” Instead they refer to it as “hamachala” or “the disease.” Saying it out loud is dangerous, like tempting Satan. So you go vague, nonspecific. A mother won’t say, “Don’t run out into the street—you could get hurt,” but “someone could get hurt,” and even that is followed by imprecations that no such thing will occur: “Heaven forbid” (chas v’shalom) they will say, and “not on us” (lo aleinu), to ward off the evil eye.

Lapid’s latest proclamation: “People will die,” runs contrary to an important principle adhered to by large swaths of Israelis, both religious and non-religious: never forecast doom. To say “people will die” is to curse them, Heaven forfend, with death. He literally could not have said anything more offensive. For your average Israeli, “Your mother is a whore” is a better thing to say than “People will die.”

Okay, well maybe that last is a bit of an exaggeration. The point is, you never say that people are going to die, especially in the Middle East where that does tend to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. But as Elder of Ziyon wrote in his own account of the Ben Gvir tempest in a teapot, “Everyone has a script in this play, and everyone plays their own role that matches their agendas.”

Lapid wasn’t forecasting doom, he was trying to make it happen. “People will die” was a dog whistle. It was a signal to the PA and to Hamas in Gaza, to respond with force should Ben Gvir go ahead with his visit. Then, when God forbid, what Lapid wished for, happened, Bibi’s coalition would be ousted and Yair and company would return to power.

Well, the joke’s on Yair. Even the PA and Hamas find him irrelevant. Ben Gvir went up to the Temple Mount, which excited a lot of talking heads, but ultimately no one cared enough to stop him and no one died.

Whether Ben Gvir should have visited the Temple Mount is a different story. Not only are such visits deemed a provocation to the Arab population, but as Elder also pointed out, they’re seen as a grave sin by many rabbis for fear that visitors will blunder into the Holy of Holies, where the tabernacle stood. One of those rabbis is MK Moshe Gafni, who said that Ben Gvir’s actions “only cause damage and have no benefit.”

This is debatable. For one thing, we don't know where the Holy of Holies is, but we know where it isn't. Ben Gvir, like all religious Jews, walked along the margins of the Temple Mount compound during his visit and in that way avoided going where he shouldn't. The only damage caused were the nasty editorials and scathing remarks by people like Lapid.

The benefits, on the other hand, are enormous. Ben Gvir’s visit is a signal that the Jews are not going to kowtow to terrorists and antisemites. He WILL pray on the Temple Mount and if you don’t like it, you can blow it out your ear. The Ben Gvir visit is a return to the Begin days, when Biden, then a senator on the Foreign Relations Committee, threatened to cut off aid to Israel if Begin didn’t jump when he said “Jump.”

Begin wasn’t having any of it then, just as Ben Gvir isn’t having any of it now. “Don’t threaten us with cutting off your aid. It will not work. I am not a Jew with trembling knees. I am a proud Jew with 3,700 years of civilized history,” said Begin to Biden.

This is the attitude that Israelis want to see in those who govern the Jewish State. We want to see a government that won’t back down—won’t cater to the whims of a world that says a Jew has no right to pray in his holy spot in Jerusalem. That’s the only government that can deter terror, because when Jews assert their rights, the Arabs don’t dare attack them, because they know the Jews will respond with due force.

And that is the only language terrorists understand. We voted for this government because we’re tired of terror. We’re tired of being robbed of our religious rights in our own land. We’re tired of being bullied by this foreign Arab terrorist implant and we’re tired of being bullied by Biden and his minions.

But we’re most of all tired of dying. Which means that Lapid isn’t going to get his wish. Ben Gvir went to the Temple Mount and nothing happened. The Arabs are afraid of him, and that’s how it should be. That’s how we make Israel safe. It’s how you make sure that people won’t die, chas v’shalom and lo aleinu, but live to be a light unto the nations, Am Yisrael Chai.

The people of Israel live.



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!

 

 

Friday, December 30, 2022



For the past two months, the media has been churning out article after article on how the incoming Netanyahu government will be extremist, a disaster for Palestinians and Israelis alike. In an unprecedented move, US President Joe Biden gave a public warning to the incoming government that he will oppose policies that the US feels are against the two state solution.

For a six months, Israel has been led by a centrist politician, Yair Lapid. By nearly all measures, Lapid was more aggressive against Palestinians than his two predecessors, Naftali Bennett and Benjamin Netanyahu.

The six months of Bennett  and of Lapid this year makes it fairly easy to compare the two.

According to the UN's OCHA, when Lapid entered office, Israel had killed 60 Palestinians in operations in the West Bank in 2022 under Bennett. Since then, 86 more were killed. Compare with all of 2020, under Netanyahu, when the number killed was 24.

Under Bennett, about 340 Palestinian structures were destroyed this year. Under Lapid, about it was about 550. Combined, this is a modest increase over the total in 2020.

Under Bennett, there were about 1620 search and arrest operations in the West Bank this year. Under Lapid, the number was over 1800. (The total number is roughly the same as under Netanyahu in 2020.)

Lapid the centrist has been clearly more aggressive than the "settler" Bennett and the "fascist" Netanyahu.

While there may be good reasons for Israeli actions under Lapid, and it is entirely possible that under Bennett or Netanyahu the numbers for past six months would have been similar, with the data we have, Lapid has been given an enormous pass by the media, which has chosen to ignore his decision-making role in Israel's moves to root out terrorists. 

Which is the point. The media does not report on objective reality: they report on the things that fit their preconceived narratives, and downplay or ignore those that do not. Netanyahu has been considered personally responsible for IDF actions under his leadership, while Lapid was not. Netanyahu is regarded as an aggressive warmonger, Lapid is not. The reporting follows the bias, not the reality.

The media and NGOs will publish and trumpet the statistics that fit the story they want to tell - and bury those that contradict it.

And similarly, even though it is not a fair comparison, the number of Israelis killed this year in attacks under the Bennett/Lapid governments is 24. In 2020, under Netanyahu, the number was 3. There are many factors in statistics like that, but Netanyahu is rarely credited in the media with reducing terror attacks in Israel which steadily decreased from 2015 to 2020.




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!

 

 

Tuesday, November 15, 2022

Times of Israel reports:

The US Federal Bureau of Investigation is launching an investigation into the killing of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, apparently by an Israeli soldier, officials said Monday, with Israel immediately rejecting cooperation with the probe.

US officials updated their Israeli counterparts earlier this month about the decision, an official familiar with the matter told The Times of Israel on Monday, confirming a Channel 14 news report.
There is a lot that doesn't make sense about this.

First of all, the US has insisted for months that they will accept the results of Israel's internal investigation. This a very strange about-face, with no obvious reason.

Secondly, the FBI has - as far as I know - never done an independent investigation of an ally without their cooperation. Normally they will work together with, often upon request from, allies to add investigative expertise that other countries cannot do. To publicly disrespect an ally like this is extraordinary.

Thirdly, this is even extraordinary according to official FBI policy described in this document:
The FBI becomes involved in investigating crimes against U.S. citizens under the following two circumstances:

When the FBI has authority under the U.S. criminal code to investigate certain crimes such as terrorism, the homicide or kidnapping of U.S. citizens, or international family abduction.

When a foreign government requests FBI assistance with an investigation.

This only makes sense if you consider Abu Aklehs' death a homicide, which is again an amazing assumption.

Combine this with the huge number of civilians that have been killed by the US Army in various circumstances - the US armed forces certainly know the difficulties of avoiding unfortunate deaths - and there is only one way to look at this investigation. 

It is a gross, deliberate insult to Israel. 

So why is the US knowingly insulting its ally? And why now?

The TOI article says that "US officials updated their Israeli counterparts earlier this month about the decision." That's about the time of the results of Israel's elections.

Abu Akleh's death and investigation were not under a right wing government, and the US respected Israel's decisions at the time. 

The Biden administration and traditionally friendly Democratic members of Congress have been increasingly willing to criticize and show displeasure at Israel's upcoming government. It seems more than coincidental that this insult, which could have happened at any time over the past six months, is timed right after the Israeli elections. 

The Biden administration is sending a profoundly passive-aggressive message that it will treat Israeli governments it does not approve of with little respect, and only lip service towards being an ally.

If I am correct, expect things to get much uglier in coming months, at the UN and maybe even an unofficial move of diplomatic resources from Jerusalem back to Tel Aviv.





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!

 

 

Sunday, November 13, 2022

From Ian:

Palestinian Resolution at UN Is a Desperate Step
The worst-case scenario – a future declaration by the ICJ stating that Judea and Samaria are being annexed – will not be a blow to Israel, but a headache at most. The countries that are already hostile to the Jewish state do not need a court to justify their approach. Similarly, the states that understand the situation or support Israel will not change their policies because of a political opinion disguised as international law. There have been plenty of these over the years and we are still standing.

Saturday's vote at the UN makes it clear who is on our side and who is against us. Sixty-nine countries opposed the measure, which is not a few. These include the United States, Germany, Canada, and Australia, where left-wing governments have been in power in recent years. Italy stood by us for the first time as well, as did others.

Most other Western countries abstained. Those who supported the Palestinians were mostly Arab, Muslim, or African countries, with one notable exception: Ukraine, which continues to put sticks in our wheels at the UN while asking Israel for favors in reality. Strange.

And speaking of reality, it is not yet certain whether the ICJ will even publish the opinion that the UN is requesting. The whole world knows that the conflict is political, not legal. With this very rationale, many countries have turned to the ICC requesting not to advance Palestinian claims against Israel. By the looks of things, those requests were convincing. The process is stuck there, which is a good thing.

In any case, even if such an opinion is published, it will take years before it is written. So early in the game, no one knows what it will say, much less what its effect will be on the world. But it doesn't mean we can bury our heads in the sand.

The Palestinian appeal to the ICJ is a desperate step taken by Mahmoud Abbas and his people in order to internationalize the conflict. This process started more than a decade ago, which is when-then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not counteract.

Abbas learned that he is not held responsible for the diplomatic battles he starts with Israel, which is why he has since escalated by appealing to a long list of international institutions.

It was a dire mistake. Israel has and has had a lot of leverage against Abbas and the senior PA officials. There is no reason, for example, for him to fly to meet with leaders around the globe as long as he seeks to undermine Israel's status. The same goes for other senior PA members as well.

These are the first tools in the toolbox and they are now at the disposal of the new government. They will have to use them until the final vote in the General Assembly in a month. In addition, the new foreign and defense ministers – when appointed – will have to make it clear to the US that it must put limits on the Palestinian Authority. The administration is very afraid of its disintegration. It must therefore contribute to returning the demon attempting to internationalize the conflict straight back into the bottle.


Lapid calls to exact price from Palestinians for UN ‘occupation’ vote
Israel is preparing a security and diplomatic response to the Palestinians for their UN resolution calling on the International Court of Justice to consider the illegality of Israel’s “occupation” of the West Bank, Prime Minister Yair Lapid said on Sunday.

Lapid instructed the government to prepare a “security and diplomatic toolbox” to respond.

“The way to resolve the conflict does not pass through the halls of the UN or other international bodies, and the Palestinians’ move at the UN will have consequences,” the prime minister warned.

The UN General Assembly Fourth Committee voted 98-17 on Friday to ask the ICJ to consider whether the IDF’s ongoing presence in Judea and Samaria, east Jerusalem and the Golan can be considered de-facto annexation after 56 years. The resolution, officially proposed by Nicaragua because “Palestine” is a UN observer, questions the status of Jerusalem, ignoring Jewish ties to its holiest site, the Temple Mount, and referring to it as al-Haram al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary). The resolution must be approved in another, full UN General Assembly vote before it goes to The Hague.
Israel slams UN panel decision on West Bank probe
Israeli leaders are decrying a UN decision to seek a legal opinion from the International Court of Justice on Israel's activity in the West Bank.

Former ambassador Daniel Shek joins us to discuss how Israel will approach the resolution, and the countries that voted in favor, including Ukraine.

Saturday, November 12, 2022

From Ian:

Lapid slams UN, calls pro-Palestinian vote 'prize for terrorist organizations'
Israel lambasted the United Nations on Saturday after a key committee approved a draft resolution Friday calling on the International Court of Justice to urgently issue its opinion on the legal consequences of supposedly denying the Palestinian people the right to self-determination as a result of Israel's actions since the 1967 Six-Day War.

The measure was vehemently opposed by Israel, which argued it would destroy any chance of reconciliation with the Palestinians.

"This step will not change the reality on the ground, nor will it help the Palestinian people in any way; it may even result in an escalation. Supporting this move is a prize for terrorist organizations and the campaign against Israel," Prime Minister Yair Lapid said in a statement, adding that "the Palestinians want to replace negotiations with unilateral steps. They are again using the United Nations to attack Israel."

The vote in the General Assembly's Special Political and Decolonization Committee was 98-17, with 52 abstentions. The resolution will now go to the 193-member assembly for a final vote before the end of the year, when it is virtually certain of approval.

The draft cites Israel's supposed violation of Palestinian rights to self-determination "from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the holy city of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures."

It would ask the court for an opinion on how these Israeli policies and practices "affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all states and the United Nations from this status."

The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, is one of the UN's main organs and is charged with settling disputes between countries. Its opinions are not binding.

"Israel strongly rejects the Palestinian resolution at the United Nations. This is another unilateral Palestinian move which undermines the basic principles for resolving the conflict and may harm any possibility for a future process," Lapid tweeted and thanked that handful of countries that voted against the resolution with Israel. "We call upon on all the countries that supported yesterday's proposal to reconsider their position and oppose it when it's voted upon in the General Assembly. The way to resolve the conflict does not pass through the corridors of the UN or other international bodies," he continued.
Jonathan Tobin: Don’t apologize for Ben-Gvir or anything else about Israel
When Netanyahu became prime minister again in 2009 and in the 12 years that followed, when there was no thought of Ben-Gvir being a minister, the same arguments about Israeli policies being oppressive and alienating American Jews were heard over and over again.

During this time, as the anti-Semitic BDS movement gain footholds on American college campuses and on the left-wing of the Democratic Party, there was no talk about Ben-Gvir or the evils of Israel being governed by right-wing and religious parties.

To the contrary, the so-called centrists of Israeli politics—Lapid and Gantz—were just as reviled by those who spread the “apartheid state” smear as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are today. The same claims about a mythical old “good” Israel being destroyed were made by those who opposed Netanyahu.

Those who think one Jewish state on the planet is one too many didn’t need Religious Zionists in Israel’s cabinet to be convinced that Israel shouldn’t exist. American Jews who are embarrassed by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich were already embarrassed by Netanyahu and even some of his left-leaning opponents in the Knesset. Their failure to magically make the conflict with the Palestinians disappear has been cited by those who note a decline in support for Israel in the years since the collapse of the Oslo peace process, and even before that while the delusion that it might succeed was still alive.

This goes beyond the fact that the claims that Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are fascists is without real substance. As I’ve noted previously, the talk about the winners of last week’s election being enemies of democracy is just an echo of the Democratic Party talking points about Republicans in the U.S. and just as specious. Whatever one may think of either man, their party doesn’t oppose democracy.

None of that matters because this discussion isn’t rooted in the facts about Israel or those who will make up its next government. Rather, it is an expression of unease with the reality of a Jewish state that must deal with a messy and insoluble conflict with the Palestinians as well as one where the majority of its Jews don’t think or look like your typical liberal Jewish Democrat.

Israel-haters will work for its destruction no matter who is its prime minister or the composition of the government. As has always been the case, the anti-Semites don’t need any new excuses for their efforts to besmirch and delegitimize the Jewish state.

One needn’t support Netanyahu or his partners to understand any of this.

Rather than apologizing for Ben-Gvir or the other aspects of Israeli reality that make readers of The New York Times cringe, those who care about the Jewish state and its people need to stop longing for an Israel which looks like them and embrace the one that actually exists. By buying into the disingenuous claims that this government will be less worthy of their support than its predecessors, they are merely falling into a trap set for them by anti-Semites.

Those who support the right of a Jewish state to exist should stop apologizing for it not conforming to some idealized liberal vision of Zionism, and understand that the people who voted for Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir are just as deserving of respect and representation as they are.
Fred Maroun: To anti-Zionists, Ben Gvir is not a problem, he is an opportunity
While Ben Gvir calls for Palestinian terrorists to be expelled from Israel, we know that Arab entities (including the Jordan-occupied West Bank and the Egypt-occupied Gaza) indiscriminately expelled all Jewish residents decades ago. We also know that Israel’s enemies are “bent on wiping the Jewish state and its inhabitants off the map” (as Canadian National Post columnist John Robson put it). As racist and as anti-democratic as Israel’s far right is, it is nothing compared to Israel’s enemies. That is of course cold comfort to those who are genuinely concerned about Ben Gvir and his ilk, but it points to a double standard.

Criticizing Ben Gvir and the Israeli extreme right while giving a pass to far worse Palestinian groups is a double standard. It sets high expectations of Jews while setting much lower expectations of others. It is obviously a form of antisemitism.

Using Ben Gvir to demonize Israel is not a new concept. Before Ben Gvir and the Israeli extreme right became popular, it was Netanyahu and his Likud party who were the favorite target of anti-Zionists. Anti-Zionism was not born with Ben Gvir’s entry into Israeli politics, nor was it born with Netanyahu’s entry into Israeli politics. It has existed ever since Israel exists. Anti-Zionism was just as strong, and perhaps even stronger, when Israel was governed by socialists like David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir.

In essence, there are two types of criticisms of Ben Gvir. There is the criticism that aims to make Israel better (or at least not worse). This criticism comes from Zionists in Israel and abroad. And there is the criticism that uses Ben Gvir as a new and more convenient way to demonize Israel. This criticism comes from anyone who hates Israel and does not give a fig about Israeli Arabs but looks on with glee as Ben Gvir weakens the fabric of Israeli society.

To Zionists, Ben Gvir is dangerous for several reasons. He is likely to weaken Western support for Israel, he is likely to weaken Israeli democracy, and he is likely to increase Israel’s investment in West Bank settlements which make a one-state bi-national solution increasingly likely. To Zionists, Ben Gvir is a problem. But to anti-Zionists, these are all reasons to celebrate. To them, Ben Gvir isn’t a problem, he’s an opportunity.

Wednesday, October 26, 2022


Yair Lapid, for now, is the caretaker prime minister of Israel. Next week at the polls, however, Israelis will determine his fitness to remain as head of their government. One factor that voters may wish to take into account is his lack of an education: Yair Lapid never matriculated from high school.

Informed of this juicy tidbit, Israelis not to the right will laugh in your face. The fact is, however, indisputable. The naysayers may go to Google to prove you wrong, pointing to the scanty text falling under Lapid’s official Knesset biography, which suggests that he has, at the very least, attained a baccalaureate degree:

Education:

Studies toward MA in Hermeneutics and Culture Studies, Bar Ilan University.

But dig a little further and one arrives closer to the truth, as in this Hebrew-language biography of Lapid at Ynet:

:השכלה של יאיר לפיד

בוגר הגימנסיה העברית הרצליה, ללא זכאות לתעודת בגרות. התקבל ללימודי תואר שני במסלול מהיר לדוקטורט מטעם אוניברסיטת בר אילן, אך עזב לאור איסור המל"ג על קבלת סטודנטים ללא תואר אקדמי.

Google translates this as (emphasis added):

Yair Lapid's education:

Graduated from the Herzliya Hebrew High School, without eligibility for a matriculation certificate. He was admitted to master's studies on a fast-track path to a doctorate on behalf of Bar Ilan University, but left in light of the ban on accepting students without an academic degree.

In other words, it’s against the rules, but the university was going to look the other way and give Lapid a master’s. Unfortunately, someone noticed and that someone was the Council for Higher Education (CHE), the official authority for higher education in Israel and the body responsible for this country’s higher education policy. In 2012, CHE recommended sanctions* for Bar Ilan as a result of its offer to give Lapid some lickety-split education on the sly (emphasis added):

The Council for Higher Education will recommend on Tuesday imposing sanctions on Bar-Ilan University for violating regulations on accepting students for advanced degrees. The investigation was launched after Haaretz revealed that Bar-Ilan had accepted Yair Lapid directly to a Master's and then a doctoral program without him having [a] B.A. degree.

The CHE ordered its committee on supervision and enforcement to investigate the matter, and the committee will meet on Tuesday and recommend action against the university.

All other Israeli universities were asked to report any similar violations by the middle of February, but the Council of University Presidents said Tuesday that, as far as it knows, only Bar-Ilan admitted such students against the rules. However, a Bar-Ilan official said he thinks all of the universities do the same.

Lapid was accepted onto Bar-Ilan's prestigious culture and interpretation graduate program, which accepts only candidates who received a B.A. degree with honors. Lapid, a news and media personality whose recent announcement of his Knesset candidacy was accompanied by reports of skyrocketing popularity in polls, has no undergraduate degree.

In response, the CHE launched an investigation. The university says Lapid was accepted into the demanding master's and doctoral programs on the basis of his "literary and journalistic achievements."

Someone might want to tell Haaretz that not only does Lapid not have an undergraduate degree, he did not even pass the bagrut—the rigorous Israeli high school matriculation examinations. Should we be disturbed by Lapid’s lack of academic credentials? And isn’t it kind of embarrassing for Israel to have a prime minister who didn’t finish high school?

That depends on your point of view. Is he otherwise qualified?

Abraham Lincoln Marovitz

Well, let’s put it this way, he’s no Abraham Lincoln Marovitz. Marovitz earned his Bachelor of Laws in 1925 at the age of 19, when he was still 20 months too young to sit for the Illinois bar exam. He took the exam when he turned 21, and passed it on his first try. But Marovitz attended law school without benefit of a college degree. "In those days, you didn't need a college degree to go to law school," Marovitz later said. "So that's how I wound up the only sitting federal judge who never went to college."

Of course, even the boy wonder that was Marovitz, matriculated from high school.

Bar Ilan’s claim that it accepted Lapid for a masters and subsequent doctoral program (!) because of his “literary and journalistic achievements” doesn’t even begin to pass the smell test. It is far more likely that Lapid’s political star had begun to rise, so he thought he’d talk to someone and snag a couple of college degrees PDQ, because hey. That lack of education: It’s not a good look for a prime minister.  

Lapid, like me, is a writer and a journalist. He never studied political science. He’s not a lawyer or an economist. But he does have great hair and his English is good. Also his father was Tommy Lapid.

Are these CVs, added to his experience in office, enough to sway the balance against his failure to obtain a high school diploma? From this writer's perspective, it seems doubtful. And here is why:

Some years ago, I applied for a job with a Jerusalem think tank. They loved my cover letter and resume. I stood out from all the candidates. But there was nothing about education on my resume, could I just fill in for them that missing bit?

At that point, the jig was up and I had to tell them that I was not a college graduate. To which they said, “You’re otherwise perfect for us, but as a government-affiliated think tank, there’s no way we can hire someone without even a bachelor's degree.”

I was disappointed, but I had learned a lesson: I too, was no Abraham Lincoln Marovitz. If I wanted a job at that level, I was going to have to put in the time and work necessary to earn it. And if I wasn’t willing to do that, I had to set my sights elsewhere. 

It’s pretty basic: without that college degree, I was not qualified for that particular job, no matter how much knowledge or wisdom I had managed to accumulate.

But like I said, even matriculated from high school. Which leads to a thought:

It is not that difficult to arrange to sit for the Israeli high school matriculation exams, no matter one’s age or station in life. Shouldn’t the Israeli electorate, at the very least, demand that a prime minister have a high school degree under his or her belt? And shouldn’t this be codified into law?

*The Haaretz piece linked to here is behind a paywall.


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!

 

 



Friday, October 21, 2022

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Yair Lapid, Authoritarian and Unafraid
Under Israel’s constitutional law Basic Law – Referendums, to come into force all international agreements that involve the concession of sovereign territory require the approval of two-thirds of the Knesset or must pass in a public referendum. Since Lapid’s deal involves the concession of Israel’s territorial waters, under both the spirit and letter of the law, Lapid is supposed to submit the deal to the Knesset for two-thirds approval. In the event, Lapid tried to avoid even presenting the agreement to the Knesset for review. Although Attorney General Gali Miara Baharav issued an opinion that the agreement doesn’t need to be considered under the Basic Law – Referendums (for reasons that aren’t clear), she still insisted that the Knesset must approve the deal by a simple majority.

Lapid, for his part, doesn’t care what his attorney general thinks or what the law says. In response to a reporter’s question at the press conference, Lapid explained how he justifies his decision to act in clear contempt of the law and his attorney general and suffice with government approval of his radical deal with Hezbollah’s stand-in government in Beirut.

As he put it, “In light of the opposition’s unrestrained behavior, we have decided not to bring the agreement before the Knesset for a vote.”

That is, given that his political opponents oppose a gas deal that cedes Israeli territory and natural resources to its sworn enemy, under the gun, and just weeks before a national election, Lapid has decided that the Knesset is unworthy of the honor of approving his deal.

Several commentators have noted that Lapid’s statement demonstrated a contempt for his opposition. But the real problem with his statement, and the sentiment it expressed, is that it demonstrated an utter contempt for the most basic institution in Israel’s parliamentary democracy—the parliament, and for democratic norms.

Probably the worst thing about Lapid’s anti-democratic behavior is that his supportive press is letting him get away with it. While the CEC made Yesh Atid pay Channel 14’s legal costs, it didn’t require Lapid’s party to reimburse the television station for the fortune it paid to run a public campaign against Lapid’s efforts to shutter it. Channel 14 felt compelled to launch its campaign because for the most part, it received no support from its counterparts in the progressive, Lapid-supporting media. Israel Hayom, which changed its editorial line to support the Bennett-Lapid government was the only newspaper to express opposition to Lapid’s campaign against Channel 14. And it did it in a house ad, on page 20 of the paper. With the exception of two or three journalists on the right that broadcast for the other stations, Channel 14’s competitors either said nothing, or expressed support for Lapid’s effort to shut it down.

As for the deal with Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon, most of the media coverage has played down Lapid’s apparent breach of a Basic Law to ram his deal through on the eve of elections. Opposition to the deal has been painted in partisan colors, effecting the sense that the controversy over an agreement which requires Israel to make massive concessions in response to Hezbollah threats is nothing but electioneering.

It is impossible to know how the elections will pan out. There are always last-minute surprises. Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc is consistently polling between 59-62 seats, which makes it far from certain that Netanyahu will be able to form a coalition without making a deal with members of Lapid’s left-Arab bloc. But Lapid’s behavior since taking over the caretaker government makes one thing clear. If he forms the next government, the foundations of Israel’s democratic system and the basic freedoms that citizens of a free society expect, including freedom of the press and representative government, will be imperiled.
David Singer: Roth confounds UN, USA & Australia: Two-State solution “is gone” Kenneth Roth – recently retired Executive Director of Human Rights Watch – has undermined the continuation of the policy espoused by the UN, USA and Australia for the last 20 years supporting the the creation of a new Palestinian Arab State between Israel and Jordan for the first time in recorded history (two-state solution).

Addressing a recent discussion hosted by the Washington-based think-tank - Arab Center - Roth declared:
“The two-state solution is great but it's gone”

Roth’s bombshell admission was followed by this statement made by Hady Amr - US deputy assistant secretary for Israeli and Palestinian affairs:

"We remain committed to rebuilding our bilateral relationship with the Palestinian people, with the US president's goal of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict along the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,"

In reversing Australia’s decision to recognise western Jerusalem, later revoked, as the capital of Israel – Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong said:
“Australia is committed to a two-state solution in which Israel and a future Palestinian state coexist, in peace and security, within internationally recognised borders. We will not support an approach that undermines this prospect.”

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been repeating a similar mantra since 2017:

“A two-state solution that will end the occupation and, with the creation of conditions, also the suffering even to the Palestinian people, is in my opinion the only way to guarantee that peace is established and, at the same time, that two states can live together in security and in mutual recognition,”

This blinkered approach by the UN, USA and Australia has seen each of them refusing to acknowledge – let alone discuss – the merits of a new alternative solution emanating from Saudi Arabia in June : Shredding the failed two-state solution and calling for the merger of Jordan, Gaza and part of the 'West Bank' into one territorial entity to be called The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine whose capital will be Amman – not Jerusalem (Saudi Solution).

Tuesday, October 18, 2022

From Ian:

Australia revokes recognition of western Jerusalem as Israel’s capital
The Labor Party-led Australian government on Tuesday officially revoked the country’s recognition of western Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, confirming a Guardian report the previous day revealing that Canberra had walked back the language adopted by former Liberal Party prime minister Scott Morrison.

The Australian Cabinet instead agreed that Jerusalem’s eventual status must be resolved via peace negotiations with the Palestinians that lead to a two-state solution.

“We will not support an approach that undermines this prospect,” Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong was quoted by the Associated Press as saying on Tuesday.

The Labor Party, with Anthony Albanese as prime minister and Wong as the top diplomat, rose to power in May 2022.

According to Monday’s Guardian report, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade recently dropped the following two lines of text from its website:
“Consistent with this longstanding policy, in December 2018, Australia recognized West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, being the seat of the Knesset and many of the institutions of the Israeli government.

“Australia looks forward to moving its embassy to West Jerusalem when practical, in support of, and after the final status determination of, a two-state solution.”
The lines were deleted after the Guardian Australia asked the current government questions about the matter.

In response, Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid denounced Canberra’s move, saying in a statement that, “Jerusalem is the eternal undivided capital of Israel and nothing will change that.

“In light of the way in which this decision was made in Australia, as a hasty response to an incorrect report in the media, we can only hope that the Australian government manages other matters more seriously and professionally,” Lapid added.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry announced that it would summon Australia’s ambassador over the issue.
Has Australia's Jerusalem reversal harmed Israel? - analysis
Even the United States failed until recently to recognize that Jerusalem was part of Israel. US citizens who wanted to register the birth of their children in that city could not have Israel as the country of birth on their passports.

Barack Obama, when he was president, might have flown to Jerusalem to eulogize veteran Israeli leader Shimon Peres. But the text of the speech he delivered at Mt. Herzl Military Cemetery in the western part of the city, did include Israel as the location in which the address was delivered.

Former US president Donald Trump’s decision in 2017 to declare that Jerusalem was Israel’s capital and to relocate the American embassy there from Tel Aviv in 2018 was seen as a significant step in support of Israel’s hold on its capital city.

Only three other countries have followed the US example; Guatemala, Honduras and Kosovo. Liberia, Togo and Malawi are expected to open embassies in Jerusalem.

Australia’s decision in 2018 to declare that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel helped shore up that move, even if the embassy remained in Tel Aviv. To shore up that declaration it opened a trade office in the city. Some eight other countries have done so as well, including the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Serbia.

Prime Minister Yair Lapid as well as his predecessors Benjamin Netanyahu and Naftali Bennett, all campaigned to change Jerusalem’s status in the international arena, with what appeared to be initial successes.

Last year, for example, support for the Jerusalem resolution at the UN dropped; it passed with only 129 votes.


Australia drops recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital
Michael Danby, Former Chairman and Member of the Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee of Australian Parliament, says the hasty decision by the Australian cabinet to revoke its recognition of west Jerusalem as Israel's capital was driven by local political considerations.


Israel slams Australia on 'hasty' Jerusalem reversal
Israel is slamming Australia the administration reversed its recognition of West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel - a decision made by former prime minister Scott Morrison.

Friday, October 14, 2022

From Ian:

Lapid's Two State Solution
What did Yair Lapid mean by his foregoing statement? Did he mean 2 states in an undivided Jerusalem or Jerusalem undivided as an Israel state with the Palestinian Arab state established elsewhere? If the former, he would find a majority in Israel would not accept this. If the latter, no Palestinian Arab or Arab leader would accept it.

What he should have done was to make use of an expert historian to proof positive Jewish indigenous rights to the Land of Israel, After all, during Temple Times , we learn of the Jews and the Romans. Subsequently the Greeks. The words, "Palestinians" and Arabs" don't appear until many centuries later.

To begin with, he could share the words of Lloyd George, who was outraged by the claim that Arabs had been treated unfairly in Palestine---":

"No race has done better out of the fidelity with which the Allies redeemed their promises to the oppressed races than the Arabs. Owing to the tremendous sacrifices of the Allied Nations, and more particularly of Britain and her Empire, the Arabs have already won independence in Iraq, Arabia, Syria, and Trans-jordania, although most of the Arab races fought throughout the War for the Turkish oppressors---[In particular ] the Palestinian Arabs for Turkish rule."[ A Mandate for Israel by Douglas J. Feith].

Perhaps the greatest lesson for Lapid is demonstrated by history - Appeasement mostly does not work and it certainly does not win.
Ruthie Blum: It makes sense to be suspicious of the maritime deal
Jaw-dropping press conference
LAPID’S PRIME-time press conference was just as jaw-dropping. Lauding the great “achievements” that Israel made by (ostensibly) rejecting a set of Lebanon’s additional demands, he boasted that the cabinet had approved the deal and thanked Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron for their help and support. Oy.

He proceeded to acknowledge that the agreement “staves off the possibility of a flare-up with Hezbollah,” quickly averring that “Israel is not afraid of Hezbollah. The IDF is stronger than any terror organization, and if we went to battle, we would deal it a heavy blow. That being said, if it’s possible to prevent war, it’s the job of a responsible government to do so.”

Questioned by a reporter about the government’s consent to circumvent a Knesset vote, he blabbered about the legality of the decision. Then he let the cat out of the bag.

“In light of the utterly profligate behavior of the opposition, we didn’t think that it would be [the] right [thing to do],” he explained.

In other words, the risk of Hezbollah interference in Israel’s gas mining is smaller in Lapid’s eyes than a potential parliamentary thumbs-down. Which brings us to Iran.

Biden's horrific foreign policy
DESPITE THE ongoing protests across the Islamic Republic that are providing a glimmer of hope about the ultimate fall of the regime, the US administration is continuing to convey its desperation to revive the nuclear pact and fill Tehran’s coffers with billions of dollars. This travesty is typical of Biden’s horrific foreign policy.

Israel cannot afford to follow in such ill-fated footsteps. Nevertheless, National Security Adviser Eyal Hulata defended the gas deal on the ridiculous grounds that it “goes against Iran’s interest in Lebanon and weakens Hezbollah’s hold on the government in Beirut.”

Really?

No wonder Udi Adiri, Israel’s longtime lead maritime border and gas extraction negotiator, resigned a couple of weeks ago in exasperation over the contents of the document that was crafted against his better judgment. This didn’t have an effect on what is going to be a signed, sealed and delivered deal on October 31, the day of Aoun’s exit and 24 hours before Israelis head to the polls.

No, you don’t have to be a maritime expert to grasp the magnitude of the gambit. Common sense and experience ought to suffice, if not in Israel’s soon-to-be-shuffled halls of power, then at least at the ballot box.
'All my family and friends turned against me when I enlisted in the IDF'
The Israel Defense Forces' Desert Reconnaissance Battalion is one of a kind: not only are its fighters volunteers, but they come from Muslim, Christian, and Circassian backgrounds, often having left their families and friends, who opposed their enlistment, behind.

They have served on the border with the Gaza Strip for many years, protecting Israel and putting their lives on the line.

According to one of the fighters, "there are people here whose identities cannot be revealed not because of the operational aspects, but because of what would happen to them if their photos or names were made public." The unit was established in 1986 in order to regulate the enlistment of Bedouin youth in the IDF. What began as a small unit has over time grown into a battalion.

When the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, the unit became operational and was stationed along the Gaza border. During the Second Intifada, between 2000 and 2005, the fighters participated actively in operations in the strip, especially the Philadelphia Route, combating underground tunnels and the spread of terror.

In January 2002, four of the battalion's fighters were killed in an attack on an outpost near the Kerem Shalom border crossing, where several years later Gilad Shalit would be captured, and where the fighters carried out patrols with us, the journalists, in the dead of night.

Lt. Col. Guy Madar, 33, married and father of five from the Karmei Katif settlement in southern Israel, has been commanding the battalion for the past three months. He grew up in the Givati Brigade, and when he reached the rank of major general, he naturally wanted to continue his service in the purple brigade.

But today, he says, he could not be prouder of his fighters, even though sometimes the Arabic language, which is used outside of operational activity – as that is only conducted in Hebrew – is a challenge for him.

"I manage. The soldiers know Hebrew, and othertimes, they help me. My ambition is to learn Arabic. This is my first job as a battalion commander, but I got to know the Bedouin patrol unit because they are trained in a Givati base. But you only think you know something before you actually do it. Before that, there are a lot of preconceived notions. When I joined, I discovered how amazingly they operated. I grew up in Givati and I wanted to be an officer in Givati, and I will honestly say that at first, I was a little disappointed because I had a lot of fears, we all have our prejudices. It was only when I joined that I found out how serious this unit is. The fighters really don't get the appreciation they deserve.

"When I say that I am the commander of the Bedoun patrol unit, everyone tells me that it must be challenging and asks how I manage. My answer is that it is like any fighting unit in the IDF. That it is a group of fighters who want to contribute. They are strong, good fighters, and know the sector like the back of their hand. I have a company commander who has been here since 2013. Everyone who comes across the unit discovers that they are wonderful guys, not spoiled, who just want to fight and contribute to the country."

Tuesday, October 04, 2022

Haaretz reports:

On August 31, Yair Lapid and Joe Biden held a phone call. Afterward, the offices of both men issued a press release, as is customary, but used different language. Hiding in the White House version was a story that was missing from the announcement of the Prime Minister’s Office: “The President also emphasized the importance of concluding the maritime boundary negotiations between Israel and Lebanon in the coming weeks.” In other words, Biden simply told Lapid he was fed up with the delays, and was sending his envoy Amos Hochstein to the region to complete the deal and enable the development of Israel’s Karish and Lebanon’s Qana natural-gas fields.
The specifics of the deal are still under wraps, but this comparison of two maps in Lebanese media show how Israel has been making concession after concession and the Lebanese keep gaining.

This map from June shows a curved border that would allow Lebanon to keep the entire Qana field but would give Israel other portions closer to its position of claiming Line 1.


Abu Ali Express publishes a map from Lebanese media today showing that not only does the border adhere to Lebanon's original claim of Line 23, but it even goes into what no one doubts is Israeli territory.

This isn't compromise - it is capitulation.

Moreover, while Lapid is claiming that Israel will share in the profits of the Qana field, the Lebanese are insisting that no such deal is possible.

Haaretz says that Hezbollah is not the reason Israel is compromising, but the Lebanese are saying that Hezbollah's threats are part of their "unified position" that helped them achieve pretty much everything they wanted.

Haaretz adds:
 Biden wants to keep Western countries united on the side of Ukraine in its war with Russia. He fears his European allies will break under the Russian economic pressure, with Europeans freezing this winter without the gas from the crippled Nord Stream pipelines. Any addition of oil or natural gas to the global market will give the Americans more breathing room, which can be translated into military aid for Ukraine. It’s why Biden wanted a new nuclear accord that would have lifted sanctions and increased energy exports from Iran. It’s why Biden visited Israel and Saudi Arabia in July. It’s why Biden is under pressure to complete an accord that will allow for the production of gas in the eastern Mediterranean. It’s obvious that these gas fields will not satisfy the European demand for energy, certainly not immediately – but their development will send a positive signal to a nervous market.
Keep in mind that the US withdrew support for the EastMed gas pipeline that would allow Europe to access Mediterranean gas fields soon before Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Check out this press release from the American Energy Alliance from January 26:


If providing Europe with natural gas is such a high priority, one would think that this would be reconsidered - especially to compensate Israel for the lost land being imposed. But I haven't seen that. 




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!

 

 

Friday, September 23, 2022

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The real reason for the war against Israel and the west
The core reason, however, why the West has gone through the looking-glass over all this is its total incomprehension of anti-Semitism.

No other prejudice shares the characteristics of anti-Semitism: its driving belief that the Jews control the world; that they are leaders of a conspiracy to harm others to serve their own interests; that they are a supernaturally demonic power.

Ultimately, anti-Semitism is a form of lunacy that defies explanation. But the West cannot grasp this, because it believes everything has a rational cause.

So, it seeks to explain anti-Semitism as just another form of racism, the result of jealousy towards the Jews’ astonishing achievements or something the Jews bring upon themselves by being clannish, keeping themselves separate, looking down on everyone else and other supposed offenses.

Similarly, the West tries to explain the Nazi Holocaust not as the result of psychotic anti-Semitism, but rather of Germany’s humiliation and bankruptcy after World War I. It holds that the Palestinians are driven to behave as they do by dispossession and despair. The fact that the Islamist war against the West is fundamentally driven by a religious war against the Jews is simply unknown.

Israel has never accurately presented the war against itself as an Islamic jihad. When asked, some Israelis have said this is because holy war is a supremely fearsome thing. With Israel’s nine million citizens potentially pitched against the world’s 1.8 billion Muslims, the Jewish state prefers to cast the conflict as a nationalistic struggle it can deal with by fighting the fires that break out day-by-day, week-by-week.

The result is that Israel has done a disservice to itself and to the world. It has failed to explain the murderous reach of anti-Semitism. It has allowed the West to undermine its own defenses against a holy war it doesn’t understand. It has enabled a false narrative about the Palestinians to spread without fundamental and essential challenge.

And now an Israeli prime minister has compounded the error.
Caroline Glick: Israel’s choice: independence or appeasement
Caretaker Prime Minister Yair Lapid and his supporters in the media went berserk Tuesday after Opposition Leader Benjamin Netanyahu spoke out against the gas deal the Biden administration is mediating between Israel and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon.

Since Hezbollah launched two drones against Israel’s Karish gas platform in July, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has repeatedly threatened to blow up Karish if Israel brings Karish online without first surrendering to Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon large swathes of sovereign Israeli land underneath Israel’s recognized maritime economic zone, including the Qana gas field.

Rather than stand with Israel against Hezbollah, the Biden administration is siding with Hezbollah—Iran’s Lebanese foreign legion against Israel. U.S. mediator Amos Hochstein has pressed Israel to surrender to most of Hezbollah’s outrageous demands. And Israel has folded to the combined U.S.-Hezbollah extortion. Lapid has agreed to give “Lebanon” the Qana field. Together with his partner in strategic collapse Defense Minister Benny Gantz, Lapid insists that with the Qana field, “Lebanon” will be economically saved and once that happens, the Hezbollah-controlled country will magically free itself from Hezbollah’s grip and sign a peace deal with Israel.

Netanyahu’s statement popped their balloon. Summarizing the negotiations to date, Netanyahu warned, “Lapid has entirely collapsed to Nasrallah’s threats. Nasrallah threatened him that if we operate the Karish platform before we sign a gas deal with Lebanon, he’ll attack Israel. Lapid got scared and didn’t bring Karish online.

“Now he plans to turn over to Lebanon, with no Israel control or oversight, a gas field valued at billions of dollars that Hezbollah will use to purchase thousands of missiles and rockets that will target Israel’s cities.”

Netanyahu was right, of course, and that is the problem for Lapid and Gantz. For months the media have hidden the dangers implicit in the deal, and sufficed with parroting government talking points. Lapid intended to avoid public scrutiny, ram the deal through before the Nov. 1 elections and declare himself a genius statesman. When Netanyahu exposed the bluff, Lapid threw a tantrum, accusing Netanyahu of harming Israel’s national interests by interfering with the talks.
Mariam Memarsadeghi: The Gender Apartheid State of Iran
When President Barack Obama promoted the original Iran deal, his pitch was that the normalization of ties with the Islamic Republic would improve the welfare and freedoms of ordinary Iranians. The exact opposite happened. Even with injections of billions in cash into the regime’s coffers, the people grew poorer and the state more repressive. The so-called “moderate” former President Hassan Rouhani presided over the killing of over 1,500 protesters. That President Joe Biden wants to obtain a watered-down version of that deal with Raisi in Rouhani’s office, and with the supreme leader still in power, shows the moral vacuity of a foreign policy that aligns itself with the most repressive tyrants on the planet, even as they murder women, gay people, political liberals, journalists, and anyone else who dares to assert the most basic claims to their own humanity.

Biden has been willing to stick Americans with extortionate gas prices in order to fight for Ukraine and trash our alliance with India by sticking up for “human rights” in the subcontinent. But when it comes to Iran, the president of the United States and leading officials in his administration have been eager to abandon young Iranians, women especially, who have been fighting courageously for freedom since 2009. The greatest asset America has for a peaceful Middle East is the Iranian people, and yet the Obama-Biden playbook is predicated on their permanent oppression under the heel of a brutal regime of America-hating, Holocaust-denying, theocratic misogynists who beat women to death for exposing their hair.

There is no telling whether this time the Iranian people will finally win. What is certain is that the Handmaid’s Tale regime that hates women and hates America is still being courted by the Biden administration, which is a failure not just of our morality but of our national interest. When you look at the photographs of beautiful young Mahsa Amini tortured to death, and when you watch videos of the same thugs who killed her attempting to beat her young compatriots for protesting for her life, remember that these are the thugs the United States is attempting to equip with more power, more cash, and more prestige, at the expense of people who desperately want to be free of their tyranny.

Saturday, August 27, 2022

From Ian:

The Use Of Human Shields Is A War Crime. America Must Hold Terrorists Accountable
The administration and Congress should take several steps to more effectively counter the widespread use of human shields by PIJ and other terrorist organizations.

First, the administration should implement its legal authority to designate terrorists who use human shields. Despite strong evidence of human shields use by PIJ and other terrorists, and the requirements of U.S. law, neither Trump nor Biden has thus far imposed any human shields sanctions on anyone. Imposing sanctions on PIJ leaders for their use of human shields would be an important first step.

Meanwhile, Congress should reauthorize and enhance the existing sanctions law,which is set to expire on December 31, 2023.

In addition, the US, Israel, and other allies should work together, including with NATO, to press the UN and other international organizations to investigate, condemn, and encourage penalties for human shields use by terrorist organizations and their material supporters. For example, the UN human rights high commissioner and council should be encouraged to vigorously investigate, condemn, and encourage accountability for the use of human shields.

Finally, the militaries of Israel, the United States and other NATO members, and other allies must coordinate in sharing best practices for more effectively addressing the use of human shields by terrorist organizations.

A robust U.S. government response to the use of human shields by PIJ and other terrorist groups would concretely advance several American national security and foreign policy objectives. These objectives include protecting U.S. and other NATO troops against terrorist use of human shields; setting the record straight in the face of UN and other efforts to falsely accuse Israel of committing war crimes; and undermining PIJ, Hamas, and other terrorist groups while supporting Palestinians who are prepared to make peace with Israel.
Jonathan Tobin: An end to the delusions about Biden, Iran and Israel?
Like any gambler who is willing to seize on any glimmer of hope that irresponsible betting will be rewarded with an unexpected reversal of fortune, Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid was sounding hopeful this week. The Israeli government that he now leads spent the last year wagering the Jewish state’s security on the idea that better relations with the Biden administration and a decision to downplay differences would influence Washington to finally show some spine and stop appeasing Iran. So, it was hardly unexpected that Lapid would seize on the news that the United States had “hardened” its response to the latest Iranian counter-offer in the talks about renewing the 2015 nuclear deal.

The “good news” consisted of a report claiming that Lapid had been told by Washington that it would not give in to Iranian demands that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) cease investigating Tehran’s nuclear program or take the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) off the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Shorn of context, that might be an encouraging development. But with the international media publishing multiple stories based on leaks from the administration about an agreement between the two sides being imminent, the notion that any victory on these two points, whether temporary or not, vindicates the decision Lapid’s tactics is risible.

Even taken in isolation, these points don’t mean that much.

As bad as giving in on that point would be, the IRGC issue is largely symbolic. If a new deal is reached, Iran’s terrorist arm will be immeasurably strengthened and enriched along with the rest of the regime, regardless of whether they’re on a U.S. list of terror groups. It’s also true that even if Iran doesn’t get Biden to agree to drop the involvement of the IAEA altogether, that means nothing. As the Iranians have demonstrated ever since former President Barack Obama’s signature foreign-policy achievement was put into force in 2015, violating they have no compunctions about repeatedly violating it, especially with regard to flouting the components requiring compliance with IAEA regulations.

More to the point, if these provisions and other points of equal importance are the only obstacles standing between an agreement, then Lapid knows his hopes of persuading the administration not to sign a new deal are negligible. As Lapid has recently reiterated, Israel’s position is that the United States and its partners in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) are making a huge mistake. Mossad chief David Barnea has been adamant in insisting that the plan is a “strategic disaster” for Israel and based on “lies.”
‘Basmanny Justice’ and the Jews of Russia
Six months into the war in Ukraine, Russia is being Russia once again.

By that, I mean the predatory, bullying Russia that we know from history. The Russia that persecutes Jews and other minorities, whether under the tsars or the Bolsheviks. The Russia that sneers at freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the other precious individual rights that prevail in the democratic West, while pushing its own brand of nationalist, obscurantist ideology.

When it comes to the “Jewish Question,” as the Bolsheviks were fond of calling it, Russia’s hostility is eminently recognizable. For much of the Putin era, that reality has been obscured, as the Russian dictator actively promoted the impression of a benevolent disposition towards the country’s Jewish minority, assisted in this task by a number of Jewish influencers abroad who really should have known better. Yet as was predictable, with the first whiff of a geopolitical crisis, Jews have once again been cast in a villainous role.

In a recent interview with the Voice of America’s Russian-language service, Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet Jewish refusenik who served as head of the Jewish Agency from 2009 to 2018, observed that Russia is “almost completely isolated from the free world.” Like a wounded animal, it is lashing out at its adversaries as a result, trying to find and pressure any weak spots. Sharansky pointed to the example of Germany, where the coming winter is anticipated with dread given the German dependence on Russia’s heavily sanctioned energy sector.

“They are scaring Germany with the fact that people will start dying from the cold in winter,” said Sharansky.

In Israel, of course, the mild winters and the lack of dependency on Russian natural gas—earlier this year, the European Union even signed a deal to import Israeli and Egyptian natural gas as part of weaning the bloc off Russian supplies—mean that the regime in Moscow has to select a different pressure point. “In the same way, they are starting to put pressure on us, using the Jewish Agency,” emphasized Sharansky.

Russia’s campaign against the Jewish Agency, which assists Jews wishing to emigrate to Israel, was launched at the end of last month. The Russian ministry of justice filed a legal bid to close the agency’s local operations, alleging that a database of Russian citizens was being maintained in contravention of Russian law.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive