Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, June 17, 2021

Hebrew watermelons, then and now

Ninety years ago, Jewish owned farms in Palestine were struggling, and they wanted to make sure that at least Jews would purchase produce from them. So they created an advertising campaign for "Hebrew melons" and told people to look for a distinctive logo before buying:

Now, the Palestinian Authority is trying to ban melons from Israel - "Hebrew melons" are to be boycotted!

On Wednesday, Palestinian customs police - operating at a Palestinian checkpoint that no one ever hears about - seized a truck with 10 tons of watermelons smuggled from Israel.

The Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture released this photo of the seizure.

Keep in mind that the 1930s campaign was to encourage buying produce from Jewish farms, but not to boycott Arab produce. The Palestinian Authority bans produce from Jews - because it knows that it cannot rely on patriotism to encourage Palestinians to only buy from Arab farmers.

Hamas freely admits it uses summer camps to recruit child soldiers

Here are the posters that Hamas has published for its summer camps. If this isn't recruitment for child soldiers, I don't know what is:

"How can I liberate my land and take my rights?"

"From generation to generation"

"Heroes are made for the day of the fighting."

"Today at the training sites...and tomorrow at the gates of Jerusalem"

Palestinian polls are interesting.

Consistently over the years, when asked a general question of whether they support armed resistance (terror) or negotiations with Israel, the results would be roughly half and half, seesawing between supporters and opponents of terror.

But when there is a specific terror attack, Palestinians overwhelmingly support that attack.

The most egregious example was in the wake of the 2008 attack on students at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva - 84% of Palestinians supported that massacre.

75% supported the Maxim restaurant suicide bombing in Haifa in 2003 that killed 20 Israelis.

77% supported a double bus suicide bombing that killed 16 in Beersheva in 2004.

Now, after the mini-war last month, Palestinians are overwhelmingly supportive of Hamas shooting rockets towards Israeli civilans.

They support Hamas shooting rockets to Jerusalem. 72% think that Hamas’ decision to launch rockets at Israeli cities came "in defense of Jerusalem and al Aqsa Mosque."

If an Israeli court would rule that the Arab squatters at Sheikh Jarrah must evacuate, 68% support Hamas shooting thousands more rockets into Israeli cities. Only 18% support non-violent resistance as a result.

Not surprisingly, Hamas' popularity has soared since the fighting. If the postponed/canceled elections would be held today, Hamas beats Fatah 36% to 19%.

Palestinians support terrorist attacks and they support terror groups. Western media consistently downplays these results, but they are consistent.

On Wednesday morning, Palestinian Preventive Security Services arrested 16-year old Amir Taha Muhammad Abu Sharar of Hebron for a Facebook post.

The police forced the child to close his Facebook account.

The Facebook post that offended the Palestinians was published during the conflict in May.

Abu Sharar, who suffers from diabetes, was held in custody for hours before he and his mother made a pledge to close his account and that he would stay away from posting on social media.

According to the Euro Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, this is only the latest in a wave of similar arrests for things people have posted on social media. Anything that offends the Palestinian government can be prosecuted under their overly broad "Cybercrime Law."

At least 60 people have been arrested or detained in the past month, and there are reports that some of those arrested were subject to torture and abuse in Jericho Prison.

I could not find a single story in the media about any of these arrests. As of this writing, the Euro-Med Monitor only published this in Arabic.

This isn't only a story about an egregious arrest of a child. It is not only a story about how the Palestinian Authority spits on freedom of speech.

This is a story about how the world media simply ignores Palestinian crimes.

60 arrests for social media posts in a month? How can this have not been reported anywhere??

Part of the reason is because Palestinian media itself doesn't report it - there is an unwritten rule that the media is not going to say anything bad about their own leaders. But there is no doubt that this information was known - Euro-Med found out about these.

The sad fact is that the world media does not want to find out anything negative about Palestinians. There are probably more reporters in the region per square kilometer than anywhere else in the world but all the reporters are only interested in demonizing Israel.

Human rights violations by the Palestinian Authority is simply not on the reporters' radar. There is no digging, no investigative journalism. Reporters are jostling to make Israel look as bad as possible but there are no similar stories about the Palestinian leadership - even though every single reporter knows that the corruption on the Palestinian side dwarf anything that Israel has done.

The real story is that this isn't a story in any media. And that is because the entire world media is effectively colluding to make public opinion hate the Jewish state and be sympathetic to the criminally corrupt Palestinian Authority.

It is a scandal. But it is not a scandal that the media will ever report.

06/16 Links Pt2: The Un-Jews - The Jewish attempt to cancel Israel and Jewish peoplehood; Baseless Israel Bashing Permeates Science, Medicine, and Education Unions

From Ian:

Natan Sharansky and Gil Troy: The Un-Jews - The Jewish attempt to cancel Israel and Jewish peoplehood

The clash between zealots for progress—or what some decided was progress—and Jewish traditionalism reaches back to the time of the ancients, too.

There were many Jews during Greek and Roman times who wanted to advance these appealing civilizations, which seemed to be giving birth to a brighter future. The Roman pantheon of gods seemed so much more majestic, more worldly, than the Jews’ one jealous God. These rebels would be happy to keep Jerusalem and other Jewish sites as relics as they marched along the road to a better tomorrow—backed by the imperial power of the Roman legions.

One of the Roman generals who helped raze Jerusalem and destroy the Second Temple may have been the first un-Jew. Tiberius Julius Alexander, the nephew of the leading Jewish philosopher Philo, “did not remain in his ancestral customs,” in the words of the ancient historian Josephus, a Jewish general who himself joined the Roman cause. Then, as now, those annoying Jews insisted on keeping their ghetto, their ethnonationalist state, if you will, and rejected the symbols of Rome’s more worldly multicultural empire.

Historians ultimately don’t know that much about Tiberius. What we do know is that despite his Jewish roots, he was anxious to help the world become civilized like Rome—and he unleashed the Roman legions against Alexandria’s Jews when he was prefect of Egypt from 66 to 69 CE. All this was warming up for his greatest crime against his people, serving as Titus’ second in command in 70 CE when the siege of Jerusalem plunged his own people into exile for nearly 2,000 years.

Today’s un-Jews remain as engaged with parts of their Jewish heritage, as appalled by other parts, and as anxious for acceptance, as their predecessors. Their undoing project doesn’t involve conquering the Temple in the name of civilization or converting the Jews to Christianity. Instead, they are divorcing the democratic State of Israel in the name of democracy and social justice. Today’s social justice warriors make war on Israel the same way that the Soviet communists made war on Jewish peoplehood and its institutions.

This assault goes far beyond “hugging and wrestling” or “daring to ask hard questions” or giving Israel “tough love.” Our objections to these new attacks are not attempts to dodge the difficult dilemmas we do need to debate regarding peace and war, proportionality and morality, Jewish and democratic values—or occupation, clashing rights, and defensible borders. We intimately know the many efforts that Israel’s political establishment and military take to maintain their moral compass. We wish there were more forums—such as a Global Jewish Parliament—where Israelis could discuss these and other dilemmas with world Jewry.

But we can only have those debates if we have empathy for one another and are willing to look out for one another. Ultimately, a broad, welcoming dialogue is important. But those who are set on denying the essence of Jewish peoplehood are rarely interested in the kind of respectful, mutual exchange that builds us all up. Rather, they are bent on destroying the most powerful force that has kept us together as a people through the ages—and without which they, too, will paradoxically wither away.

Phyllis Chesler: Baseless Israel Bashing Permeates Science, Medicine, and Education Unions

Until recently, the hard sciences proved impregnable to political propaganda and to Soviet-style boycotts and censorship. Not anymore.

From college campuses to medical and mental health professionals, people whose careers are rooted in inquiry and fact are falling over each other to condemn Israel for last month’s defensive war against Hamas — and in dreadfully uniform language.

I don’t know how to stop the lies about Israeli “massacres” when that lie has now been amplified by professors at so many universities, by the media, by students, and by countless authors in medical and scientific journals.

Physicians, both clinicians and scientific researchers, have also become politicized. According to a surgeon-friend: “I had to quit my women physician Facebook group because of rabid antisemitism in the guise of pro-Palestinian humanism. We formed a separate group called ‘physicians against antisemitism’ that quickly got 1,500 members.”

As it stands, we are currently undergoing a profound degradation of both experts and of expertise.

For example, in 2010, The Lancet, once a premier journal of medicine, blamed Israel for the alleged increase of “wife beating” in Gaza.

Senate passes resolution condemning antisemitism

The US Senate on Monday passed a resolution condemning the recent rise in global antisemitism fueled by Israel's 11-day conflict with Hamas last month.

The bipartisan resolution, which passed by voice vote, was introduced by Senators Jackie Rosen (D-NV) and James Lankford (R-OK), co-founders and co-chairs of the Senate Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism.

In addition to Rosen and Lankford, a total of 72 senators, 36 Democrats and 36 Republicans, co-sponsored the resolution "unequivocally condemning the recent rise in antisemitic violence and harassment targeting Jewish Americans, and standing in solidarity with those affected by antisemitism, and for other purposes."

The resolution cites specific examples of recent antisemitic incidents related to the Israel-Gaza conflict, including a pro-Palestinian convoy in London calling to rape Jewish women, an attack on Jewish diners in Los Angeles and fireworks thrown at a group of pro-Israel demonstrators in New York City.

"As antisemitism surges in the United States and around the world, we must do all that we can to put a stop to these hateful actions," Rosen said in a statement.

The resolution also calls on US President Joe Biden to nominate a State Department Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.

Proud that my bipartisan resolution w/ @SenatorLankford condemning the surge in antisemitic incidents & calling for action, cosponsored by 74 Senators, just passed the Senate by voice vote. Watch me speak on the Senate floor on why we must stand united against antisemitic hate: pic.twitter.com/VVFwIPJyK8
— Senator Jacky Rosen (@SenJackyRosen) June 15, 2021

Naftali Bennett is the new prime minister of Israel, an honor to be sure. But many of us are devastated by his assumption to the throne. It’s not only that Bennett lacks the polish and statesmanship of Netanyahu, it’s the way he seized power.

Israel is a true democracy, pretty much split down the middle in terms of right and left. We comprise a plurality of views. And that is precisely why we kept having election after election (after election after election). It is so darned difficult to settle an election when half the population feels one way, and the other half feels the other way. But even right and left are fragmented into itsy bitsy parties. Except for Netanyahu’s Likud, which received the most significant block of votes.

An election was always going to be decided by forming a coalition, because without 61 seats, you can’t make a government, and Likud had only 30. The only thing to do then is to make a match between a large party, the next largest party (Lapid’s Yesh Atid), and a few lesser parties. It was either that or cobbling together lots of teeny tiny little parties to make a larger whole of a coalition that would be so fragmented in its views that it would always be doomed to failure and not represent anyone at all.

The latter is exactly the track Naftali Bennett chose in his rise to power. He glued together teensy little parties that the majority of Israelis did not vote for, and then put them all together in a basket and presented us with a government that doesn’t represent the majority of Israelis, or even the largest sector of Israelis represented in the election, those who voted for Likud, the party of Netanyahu.

Alas, the majority was still not enough to keep Bibi in power. With only 30 mandates, he was short by more than one half of the 61 mandates he needed to remain on Balfour St.

To the hopeful, it looks as though Bennett achieved an amazing feat of unity, by crafting a government composed of every part of society: right, left, Arabs and Jews, gay, straight, people of color or with disabilities—this government has it all. Those with hope see this new government as all of the people getting together to make real change and compromise: an inclusive government. But the rest of us see it as chicanery, a coup to unseat Netanyahu, a group of tiny parties of few votes so hungry for power that they would and did play dirty.

Bennett swore up and down he would not be in a government with the people with whom he is now in a government. Bennett’s party received just 7 mandates. Netanyahu’s party had 30. Is it any wonder that Netanyahu feels he was done dirty by Bennett?

Also: you don’t have to love Netanyahu to know that this is not the time to have a changing of the guard, with Iran weeks away from the bomb and a president hostile to Israel in the White House. Netanyahu is a seasoned statesman. Bennett lacks stature, presence. Maybe that’s why the people did not choose him. He got in through deception, alone.

The night that the new government passed its final parliamentary vote, I slept badly, and had nightmares. I am afraid of this government, afraid of the Biden Administration, and terrified of Iran. The situation feels out of control.

No. I did not love Netanyahu—he made promises to the right and never kept them—but that is who needs to be prime minister right now. In Israel we have two groups of voters: Only Bibi, and Only NOT Bibi. Now we have the Only NOT Bibi government in power, and consider this: four times the number of people who voted for Bennett, did not want him in power.

Of those who did vote for Bennett, many feel betrayed. I know because I live in a town where he is very popular, and he mentioned us in his first speech as prime minister in a nod to that support. I polled my friends and many said they feel betrayed by him for sitting with Lapid, the Left, and with Ra”am (the Arab party.) A minority of my Bennett-voting friends are taking a wait-and-see attitude. They are not yet ready to give up on their romance with Naftali.

Those outside of Israel often find it difficult to understand our political climate. The following segment of Guy Zohar’s M’HaTzad HaSheini [From The Other Side] of June 1, 2021, from Israel’s Channel 11 Kan News, is enlightening, but in Hebrew only. The clip details the promises that Bennett has made and broken.

I endeavored to make a rough translation (apologies in advance for my shortcomings as a Hebrew-English translator) of the 4-minute segment to help my non-Israeli readers understand why there is such a lack of trust in Naftali Bennett. It boils down to this: every politician breaks promises, but Bennett went beyond the pale, abusing his voters’ trust, and taking advantage of the kinks in our electoral system. This makes it all the more clear that we have a desperate need for electoral reform in Israel, something to which Netanyahu alluded in his bitter parting speech.

נפתלי בנט הודיע שבכוונתו לפעול כדי להקים ממשלה עם יאיר לפיד, ועם השמאל. ברוטציה. רק עם שישה מנדטים. טוב אתם מבינים מה צריך לעשות, כן?#מהצד_השני עם @guyzo pic.twitter.com/5ZEW7f4W9v
— כאן חדשות (@kann_news) June 1, 2021

Guy Zohar: We have to take a breath, it just doesn’t come easy for us.

Naftali Bennett: I inform you today, that my intention is to work with all my strength toward the creation of a national unity government, together with my friend Yair Lapid.

Guy Zohar: We have no choice. You understand now what we have to do, don’t you?

Host: You will sit under him if he is prime minister?

Naftali Bennett: No!

Host: Will you make a rotation [agreement]?

Naftali Bennett: Not in rotation. Not in mutation. [waves hand]

Guy Zohar: Ouch. No one says he didn’t learn from Netanyahu.

Naftali Bennett: Forever and without any preconditions, I will not lend my hand to the establishment of a government with Yair Lapid.

Guy Zohar: Ouch.

Naftali Bennett: I won’t permit Yair Lapid to be prime minister, not even in rotation.

Guy Zohar: It hurts us more than it hurts you. And it gets worse.

*ding*

Naftali Bennett: We won’t form a government that elevates the Left. Because I’m Right. What I’m going to do is to establish a national government, that is to say not to transfer administration to the Left, because most of the nation, 80 mandates, are on the right, at today’s count.

Host: Lapid is the Left?

Naftali Bennett: Lapid, yes.

*ding*

Naftali Bennett: I commit before you that no matter what, I will not sit [in government] with or give my hand that *ding* Yair Lapid will be prime minister of Israel. And of course, I will not flip Lapid *ding* to become prime minister, not by rotation, and not without rotation [waves hand], because I am a man of the right.

Guy Zohar: And it doesn’t end here. Come let’s return to the speech in which Naftali Bennett declared his intention to—yes—establish a unity government with Yair Lapid.

Naftali Bennett: This is a government that will not be against any sector or any group.

Guy Zohar: But . . . just before the elections, you said that . . .

Naftali Bennett: Yair Lapid caused polarization in the last decade, truly terrible, in the Israeli community. I don’t think this should be the character that the nation of Israel today needs as its prime minister.

Guy Zohar: Back to this week’s speech. (Hoo-wa!)

Naftali Bennett: Know that the Left makes here difficult compromises in granting me the position of prime minister.

Guy Zohar: Wait! You prime minister?? YOU prime minister??? But you only have 6 mandates [out of the necessary 61 minimum needed to form a government]!

Naftali Bennett: I hope and believe that the public will give me the strength *ding* with 15 mandates I won’t be prime minister. Twenty? Yes. And I am the insurance policy for a right-wing government that will care about you.

Host: The public gives you a small number of mandates, nine mandates in the latest polls.

Naftali Bennett: Excuse me. Today I am already at 11. *ding* And if I reach 15 we will have established here a government. I need just a few more mandates to generate a change in leadership. Impossible with ten mandates to do this. 15 mandates, we can come and change the leadership in real fashion.

Host: You are the spoonful that tips the scales. You can be prime minister.

Naftali Bennett: But not with *ding* ten mandates.

Host: With ten mandates!

Naftali Bennett: That’s not democratic. You need more.

Guy Zohar: Yes. Now, let’s return to the speech that’s fresh. What does it mean that the left makes compromises?

Naftali Bennett: Know that the Left makes compromises that are not easy.

Guy Zohar: Does this mean that you are going to sit with the Labor Party?

Host: The Labor Party with seven mandates is a sort of partner?

Naftali Bennett: No. With them, they’re not in favor of a Jewish and Democratic state.

Guy Zohar: Do you mean to say that you will sit with Meretz?

Host: We’re ready to come to an agreement on this that you will not sit with Meretz?

Naftali Bennett: Right. You know why? Because they support The Hague.

Guy Zohar: What about Ra”am’s [refers to the Arab party] abstention or support?

Naftali Bennett: Listen, it’s an unbelievable thing, also this. Look how Netanyahu embraced Ra”am in this way. It’s a disgrace. I’ll explain why. Ra”am is the Islamic Movement’s party in Israel, in fact the Israeli branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is who the prime minister is ready to embrace—those who contribute to the murder of our soldiers.

Guy Zohar: Okay. There’s one thing you have to credit him, that this also Bennett said before the elections.

Naftali Bennett: *Ding* We won’t go to a fifth election. I won’t drag the State of Israel to a fifth election. This would be a crime! Vote for the right, letter Bet, it’s a kind of insurance policy that 1. We’ll establish a government.

Guy Zohar: Here it is. Everything’s okay. There were a few promises. They were all contradicted. But hey! You have to choose "1."

Keeping the Jewish State (Vic Rosenthal)

Weekly column by Vic Rosenthal

For the first time in its history, Israel’s government includes an Arab party.

Arabs have sat in the Knesset since Israel’s founding, both as members of primarily Jewish parties and as representatives of various Arab parties. From time to time Arab MKs have kept a government in office by supporting it from outside the coalition, as happened in 1993 when the Oslo Declaration of Principles was approved. But no Arab party has ever been member of the governing coalition until now.

Some people think this is wonderful. The Arabs are 20% of our population, so why shouldn’t they have a commensurate role in government? Mansour Abbas is a pragmatist who just wants the best for his constituents, they say. Others think it is a disaster. The Arab parties are all anti-Zionist and in some cases disloyal. What will happen when there is an operation against Hamas? Mansour Abbas represents an Islamist party that is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent of Hamas!

My view is that I honestly have no idea how this will work out, even assuming that the new government lasts more than a few weeks. But one thing is absolutely clear: putting an Arab party in the coalition brings the question of the relationship of the Jewish state to its Muslim Arab citizens front and center in a way that it heretofore hasn’t been.

Indeed, it’s one of those elephants in the room that we have been carefully ignoring for years. But since the formation of the new government that elephant has been tromping around and bumping into things. It can’t be ignored any longer.

Although the law requires that any candidate for the Knesset not “negate” the Jewish and democratic character of the state, the Supreme Court has required a very high standard of proof in order to disqualify an Arab candidate, and has several times overturned the decision of the Knesset’s Elections Committee to do so (the law also bans “incitement to racism,” and this has been invoked several times against Jewish candidates, including of course Meir Kahane’s Kach party).

This is in keeping with the extremely weak interpretation of “Jewish state” that was propounded by the influential former President of the Court, Aharon Barak, in whose opinion a “Jewish” state is little more than one whose values are “universal values common to members of democratic society, which grew from Jewish tradition and history.” The absurdity of this view is evident (it makes the US, for example, a Jewish state), but it is popular among those, Arabs and Jews alike, who are made uncomfortable by either Judaism or Jewish nationalism.

In 2006, a group of Israeli Arab intellectuals (I use this term although some prefer “Palestinian citizens of Israel”), under the auspices of the Arab heads of local authorities, produced a document called “The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel” in which they declare themselves “the indigenous peoples, the residents of the States of Israel, and an integral part of the Palestinian People and the Arab and Muslim and human Nation,” and call for Israel to relinquish its Jewish character and become a binational state. It accuses the “Zionist-Jewish elite in Europe” of settler-colonial oppression of the indigenous “Palestinian People.” It calls for equal representation of Jews and Arabs in the government, and the recognition of the Arabs as an “indigenous cultural national group” with international protection. “[A]ll forms of ethnic superiority, be that executive, structural, legal or symbolic” must be removed. There is a great deal more, including the placing of all “Islamic holy sites” (which naturally include all the Jewish ones) in Arab hands.

If anything “negates” the Jewish character of the state, this does. And yet, several of the participants in the development of that document, including Ayman Oudeh, the head of the Joint List of Israeli Arab parties in the Knesset, Aida Touma-Sliman, and Ghaida Rinawie Zoabi, currently serve in the Knesset.

One of the reasons that the Nation-State Law was passed was in response to this. It states that “the actualization of the right of national self-determination in the state of Israel is unique to the Jewish people,” and even specifies the flag, the national anthem, and the symbol of the state. The Basic Law (part of what serves Israel for a constitution), which was passed by a majority of Knesset members, is nevertheless controversial. The Jewish Left subjects itself to cognitive dissonance, insisting that it still believes in Zionism while wanting a “state of its citizens” (see the self-contradictory Meretz platform here) and opposing the Nation-State Law.

Jewish Israelis need to face this issue head-on and stop pretending that it does not exist. Our state – our state – was created explicitly as a Jewish state because the founders were Zionists who believed that Jewish survival depended upon the existence of a sovereign state of the Jewish people. The evidence of the past 73 years of Israel’s existence, especially the burgeoning of Jew-hatred in the 21^st century, has only strengthened my belief that they were entirely correct.

Some think that all that’s necessary for Israel to be a Jewish state is that it have a Jewish majority and a Law of Return for Jews. This ignores the real connection that most Israeli Jews have to the ancient homeland of their people, without which there is no reason for a Jewish majority, and no justification for a Law of Return. Possibly “religious” people find this easier to grasp, but it’s not necessary to be observant to see yourself as part of a historic people, a people with a land, a language, a religion, and a culture.

If the Jews of Israel give up the idea of the connection of the people to the land, if they decide to emphasize democracy at the expense of Jewishness, if they stop believing that there is great value in having their capital in Jerusalem instead of Tel Aviv, if they give up their control of Jewish holy places (because, in the words of Moshe Dayan, “who needs all that Vatican?”), they will soon find that there is no longer a Jewish majority in the Land of Israel, and indeed that the Jewish people are again wanderers in foreign lands.

The Muslim Arabs understand this quite well, and the imperatives of their religion drive them to struggle relentlessly to get control back over the entire Land of Israel, which they consider a Muslim waqf, land that permanently and irrevocably must be under Muslim control. This is why they struggle to conquer not only the physical land and temporal assets in the hands of the Jews, but to obtain symbolic and spiritual control. This is why Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are often the focus of their violence. This is why they will never give up.

Mansour Abbas may be a pragmatist in the short term, but he is also an Islamist, which implies the longest of terms. If the Jews are to prevail in the struggle for this land, they too need to understand the limits of pragmatism. They need to learn how to draw lines and stick to them, to understand the importance of symbolism, everywhere in the country, from the Galilee to the Negev. But especially now, they need to wrest control of the Temple Mount and the Old City back from the Arabs, who have systematically undercut Jewish sovereignty there since June of 1967.

We have the power and the resources to do this. Do we also have the spiritual strength, the perseverance, and the ability to sacrifice that will be required?

06/16 Links Pt1: The Paradoxes of Benjamin Netanyahu; Biden’s ‘Sanctions Hygiene’ Will Rearm Hamas Terrorists; ICC prosecutor went after Israeli settlements, but not Cyprus

From Ian:

Bret Stephens: The Paradoxes of Benjamin Netanyahu

Netanyahu is hardly Tolstoy. Still, he’s a man of formidable ambition and talent who entered the political fray looking for the harmonious universe in which a Jewish state—recognized, whole, and secure—could take its rightful place among the nations. What he found instead was that there was no straight way to get there, and perhaps no way at all, given the implacability of many of its enemies and the faithlessness of some of its friends. The two great “solutions” are equally false. There is no plausible Palestinian state that can satisfy Israeli security requirements and Palestinian desires. There is also no map of Israel that can simply swallow the Palestinians without risking being swallowed by them in turn.

What there is, then, is a muddled reality that must deeply disappoint idealists of every stripe. But it’s also a reality that beats every conceivable alternative. Netanyahu understands this, even if it’s not something he would say out loud. The criticism that he does nothing but kick cans down the road ignores the fact that, when it comes to Israel’s major strategic challenges, at least for now, that’s the only thing an Israeli prime minister can do. The question is how far the can gets kicked, and how much power and flexibility Israel can gain—militarily, economically, demographically, and so on—before it needs to kick it again. As Michael Oren, the historian and former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., has pointed out to me, Israel’s entire history is one long “war of attrition” or “war between the wars.” Still, it’s a war that Israel can fight for the long term while its people continue to flourish.

The paradox of Benjamin Netanyahu is that a man who rose to power on the strength of a certain vision of Israel held on to power at the expense of that vision. It’s that a man who did much to strengthen Israel’s position in the world through the bullishness of his personality also did much to damage to Israel’s politics through the same bullishness. It’s that a man whose thoughts, ambitions, and actions always seemed to have the broadest sweep could become the agent of his own political undoing thanks to a succession of small grievances and petty power plays.

There’s no reason to search for definitive answers anytime soon. The coalition that succeeds Netanyahu is fractious and thin, held together by little more than its loathing for a singular man. Nobody knows this better than Netanyahu himself, which is why the thought that must surely run through his head, rightly, is, “I’ll be back.”

Danny Danon: Thank You Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Throughout his tenure, Netanyahu’s perceptive policies and informed approach led to a transformation of Israel’s economy. Despite recently experiencing an economic downturn due to COVID, we in Israel have found ourselves better prepared and equipped to deal with the economic situation compared to many other countries. Netanyahu shifted the country’s focus to more liberalized markets, drastically reduced taxes, and increased competition in a market that was largely run by monopolies. The stability and growth we see today have been a direct result of Netanyahu’s approach to economic advancement.

One of the most conspicuous outcomes of his growth plans was the miraculous phenomenon of Israel’s catapult to the position of global high-tech powerhouse. With the largest number of startups per capita in the world, that’s around one startup per 1,400 people, it is hard to imagine how our tiny nation, in constant war since our founding and with limited natural resources, was able to reach such heights. Netanyahu was instrumental in establishing export channels across the world for Israel’s high-tech innovators and encouraging the world’s technology giants to invest billions in Israel’s R&D centers. This created one of the world’s most concentrated high-technology sectors, only second to Silicon Valley. There is a saying in Proverbs 29:18 that “where there is no vision, the people perish.” Netanyahu had vision and this last decade we have seen it becoming a reality.

Despite all of Netanyahu’s striking achievements, it is natural within a strong and vibrant democracy that alongside his ardent fans there will be many adversaries. While there will always be those who criticize his leadership and who are not in agreement with his policies, the majority will agree that he was an exceptional and visionary leader, whose brilliance and strategic vision transformed the landscape and our nation’s path. Today we are stronger militarily, technologically, economically, and diplomatically.

President Teddy Roosevelt once said that “Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.” Netanyahu has accomplished a lifetime of hard work already and I am sure he will confirm that every minute was precious. His impact will be felt for decades to come. We don’t know what the future holds for him but I can say for certain that Israel is eternally grateful for his service as our prime minister.

Ruthie Blum: Comic relief from a serious Israeli drama

Yamina enthusiasts are split. Some feel duped by Bennett for his broken promises. These include a vow not to join forces with Lapid and never to accept backing by Ra'am, let alone sit with it in a government.

Others are consoling themselves that at least their candidate will be prime minister for two years and lead a government that consists of a number of like-minded right-wingers. The people in this category, who wanted Bennett to replace Netanyahu, say that they're willing to give him a chance. What they mean is that they're hoping he won't cave, where it counts, to the leftists and Islamists.

The latter seem to be assuming that he will, or at least are planning to bide their time until Lapid takes over in 2023 to get to work reversing Netanyahu's policies. Despite their carry-on about his criminal charges, which are trumped up at best – and aside from their assertions that "most Israelis" voted against him – his successes are the bane of their existence far more than his failures.

The opposite is true of Bennett, who has been contending that he could do a better job than Netanyahu at implementing the ideas that they share. In other words, the difference between the two "anybody but Bibi" groups now occupying the same rows of Knesset benches is stark.

No wonder the public harbors little faith in the longevity of the so-called "pro-change coalition." But the Left, whose La La Land ideas about Palestinian victimhood at the hands of Israeli "occupiers" have become so unpopular, appears to believe that the absence of Netanyahu and an administration in Washington anxious to return to the Iran deal are its ticket to resuscitation.

Boy, is it ever in for a surprise.

The irony lies in the thrill its members are exhibiting at having the likes of Bennett serve as their savior. Bets are on about how soon their literal and figurative parties will be over.

The Israeli electorate may have been slightly divided for the past two-and-a-half years over Netanyahu's continued rule after well more than a decade. But it's been crystal-clear about where it stands on Iran, Hamas, the boycott divestment and sanctions movement and the International Criminal Court, to name but a few issues liable to put a damper on the kumbaya coalition.

I, for one, pray that Bennett remembers and acts on this. If he does, a whole different crowd will be descending on Rabin Square and elsewhere to applaud. In the event that he doesn't, the next election might just see Netanyahu return from opposition exile.

From MyLondon.News:

A 69-year-old protester climbed to the very top of a huge crane at a Nine Elms building site and has spent the night after unfurling a Palestinian flag as police try to talk him down.

The Metropolitan Police spent Tuesday (June 15) attempting to speak to the man after he climbed about 100 metres to the top of the crane between Battersea Power Station and the Sky Pool at just before 4am.

On Wednesday morning the Met confirmed they were still trying to speak to the man, and road closures remained in place.

One of the few people tweeting about him said that "He has little water and no sleeping bag, yet, he won't come down until #Palestine is trending again."

I'm sure that there is a Knesset meeting happening now about what to do.

This is pro-Palestinian activism in a nutshell - instead of actually helping Palestinians, they resort to gimmicks and stunts. Not to mention that they end up tying up police and firefighters from actually saving the lives of people who need it.

The Jerusalem Post reports:

An attempted combined stabbing and ramming attack was thwarted by the IDF outside the town of Hizma near Jerusalem on Wednesday, the army said in a statement.
A Palestinian woman who arrived at the scene attempted to run over soldiers who were securing engineering work and then exited her car and tried to stab the soldiers. The terrorist was shot and killed by the soldiers, and one soldier was lightly injured and treated at the scene.
The terrorist was identified as Mai Afanah, 29, from Abu Dis, by Palestinian media.

While Times of Israel reports that Afanah posted on Facebook hours before the attack that “I don’t have much time left in life.” I couldn't find that in her page.

What I did find was someone who was a big fan of terrorists.

She wrote this tribute to DFLP terrorist Muhammad Khalaf in 2017:

In 2019, she praised Omar Abu Laila, who fatally stabbed Sgt. Gal Keidan and murdered Rabbi Achiad Ettinger.

In February, she praised Fatah terrorist and explosive belt expert Ahmed Sanaqrah:

Last month, she changed her profile photo to one that showed a dead Muslim woman, that she implied was from Gaza but was in fact from Peshawar last year.

In her text, she wrote that "we will give birth to children even if we know that they will be martyrs in the future."

Similarly in January she wrote that people shouldn't be confused by how she appears, she is really a lioness underneath.

Even now, Palestinian media is claiming that Afanah had made a wrong turn and was killed for no reason. But it is pretty clear that Afanah intended to become a martyr.

(Some media reports that she was married and had a daughter. It is very strange that her Facebook has no photos of her husband and daughter.)

Yesterday, during the Jerusalem Flag march, a group of Jewish children chanted "Death to Arabs."

מוות לערבים pic.twitter.com/PD9Aq4HQoL
— نير حسون Nir Hasson ניר חסון (@nirhasson) June 15, 2021

This was the scene that reporters came there to see, and it spread like wildfire.

The chant is reprehensible. It is a call to genocide and ethnic cleansing.

However, such calls are seen in Palestinian - and pro-Palestinian - protests all the time. They do not get nearly as much coverage.

In Manhattan on Tuesday, among the many slogans being chanted by a crowd of anti-Israel protesters, you can hear:

"Long live the intifada"

"There is only one solution - intifada revolution"

This is a direct call to violence. While apologists claim that "intifada" merely means "shaking off" in Arabic, in colloquial terms today it always refers to the terror spree that killed hundreds of Jews with bus bombings, suicide bombings and other attacks.

"Hey hey, ho ho, Zionists have got to go"

Where? Jewish Zionists have lived in Israel for a hundred years. It is a call for ethnic cleansing.

"No justice, no peace"

This one means that unless Palestinians reach what they call "justice" - which is the elimination of the Jewish state - the will continue their support of terror and war against Jews (not against Israeli Arabs!). So it is another call for ethnic cleansing of Jews.

That's in Manhattan.

In Jerusalem, during the flag march, Palestinians chanted back,

“With fire and blood, we’ll liberate Palestine.”

This is again a direct call for war and violence against Israeli Jews.

At other protests, you can hear

"Itbach al-Yahud." - "Slaughter the Jews."

This has been a popular phrase since at least the 1920s. It was broadcast over loudspeakers at the Temple Mount to incite the 1990 riots. It has been heard at other protests.

"Khaybar, Khaybar Al Yahud"

This is a message for Jews that the army of Mohammed, who slaughtered the Jews of Khaybar, will return for them. This is especially popular, even though it is yet another call for genocide.

"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free"

We've discussed the origins of this phrase recently. Unlike the apologetics that some are claiming, this is a direct call to destroy the State of Israel and to ethnically cleanse the Jews.

"Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas"

More popular with soccer fans, but still more widespread than "death to the Arabs." (h/t Emmanuel)

Where are the people protesting these frequent calls to ethnically cleanse - or even to slaughter - Jews?

Jews and Israelis across the board condemned the call to kill Arabs. Where are the condemnations from Palestinians or Palestinian activists about these calls to eliminate Jews from the region?

06/15 Links Pt2: Democrats Can Blame Their Headaches on Their Own Cravenness; The anti-Americanism of anti-Israel activists; Changing the Focus of Israel Advocacy

From Ian:

Christine Rosen: Democrats Can Blame Their Headaches on Their Own Cravenness

Note to Nancy and the Squad: Criticism of a public official for questionable or misleading statements she made in the course of doing her job isn’t “tone policing” or Islamophobia or racism. It’s part of the job of being a public servant; you have to answer for your public statements.

At least Omar continues to receive plenty of cover for hers from mainstream media outlets. Intellectuals sympathetic to the progressive cause have leaped to her defense. Former New York Times columnist Elizabeth Bruenig, now at the Atlantic, argues that “of course no one should believe” that Omar would equate the Taliban with the U.S. or Hamas with Israel, and paints those who questioned the remarks as acting in bad faith.

There is no “of course” in this situation, however. Given Omar’s history of anti-Semitism and anti-American statements, the burden of proof should be on Omar to explain herself, not on the public to give her the benefit of the doubt every time she says something inflammatory or bigoted.

Bruenig is assessing the situation within the framework of internal Democratic coalition politics, and as such complains that while the Marjorie Taylor Greenes of the world roam free, “Democrats pick off their only honest lefties and coddle their pet right-wingers, such as Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, in hopes of stopping the somewhat further right.”

But should Democrats be embracing these so-called honest lefties? What’s popular among the Squad and the Bruenigs of the world turns out to be not quite as palatable to the average Democratic voter. A recent autopsy of the 2020 election by several centrist Democratic groups found significant challenges posed by progressive posturing on key issues. As National Journal reported, “The political autopsy, coauthored by Third Way, the Collective PAC, and the Latino Victory Fund, suggests that largely white progressive activists pushing a left-wing agenda on the party were blind to the ideological diversity within nonwhite communities.”

Efforts by some Democrats to move to the center are “being held captive by a network of progressive activists and donors who demand ideological fealty on policy positions that are politically toxic to middle-of-the-road voters of all racial and ethnic backgrounds.” Such assessments include the Squad’s irrational hatred of Israel; 75 percent of Americans hold favorable views of Israel, according to the most recent Gallup poll.

Perhaps Pelosi should occasionally rebuke the Squad when it indulges in excessive, misleading, or anti-Semitic rhetoric? Besides making her look more like a leader and less like a shill for the Squad, it might in part determine if Pelosi will be wielding or relinquishing her Speaker’s gavel in January 2023.

Emily Schrader: The anti-Americanism of anti-Israel activists - opinion

The problem with ignoring incitement and hate speech against specific groups or even nationalities, is that it doesn’t stop there. As we’ve seen throughout history, what starts with discrimination against one group never ends with only that group. Much has already been said about the rise of antisemitism online and in person in recent months, and it’s true that it has grown in part because of the outlandish and incendiary rhetoric on social media about both Israel and Jews. But one phenomenon that many in Gen Z don’t seem to fully grasp is that the same people who are obsessed with hating Israel are also hell-bent on smearing the United States as well – and not just because of the US aid to Israel as many would like to believe.

Almost any place you see aggressive, over-the-top anti-Israel activity, you see it coupled with radical anti-American ideas as well. Even going back to my campus days at the University of Southern California, the most prominent anti-Israel groups were also virulently anti-America, and would rant and rave about how we have to overthrow the economy in order to usher in a socialist (or communist in some cases) revolution. The events hosted on campus by anti-Israel groups like “Students for Justice in Palestine” also featured openly anti-American speakers who made inflammatory and untrue statements about Israel, while also condemning US soldiers – and all of this was in the pre-Trump era.

Today’s anti-Israel activists are even more extreme. Take for example, Mohammed and Muna El-Kurd, the twins from Sheikh Jarrah with millions of followers on social media who are on a constant international media tour, playing the victim and sharing their sob story about how “evil” Israel is. Yet while the international press is normalizing these activists, a quick glance at their social media will show you not only radical support for terrorism and violence, but also vehement hatred of the United States including celebrating the burning of an American flag in Colombia and whitewashing al-Qaeda. By failing to call out radicalism, we normalize it.

But sadly, the anti-Israel and anti-America voices have also become more mainstream in the government. In the United States, the inaccurate propaganda and the smearing of American allies has been normalized thanks to extremists like Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib. Yet it still came as a shock to many when this month Omar compared the US and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban, claiming that “all” of them had committed “unthinkable atrocities” – horrific crimes against humanity. Her ignorant comments drew sharp criticism from her fellow Democrats who penned a letter demanding “clarification.” Instead of apologizing, Omar then claimed she was being pressured because of “Islamophobia,” and Tlaib backed her up.

Obviously, Omar’s comments and response are both absurd, but where were these Democratic lawmakers when Omar was standing on the House floor calling Israel’s right to self-defense “terrorism” when they strike Hamas military targets? Suddenly when Omar exposes her true anti-American beliefs, the world is surprised. When we fail to defend the truth when Israel is unfairly maligned, the United States is never far behind in the campaign of delegitimization.

Changing the Focus of Israel Advocacy

Those who advocate for Israel often take a defensive posture in response to endless attacks from advocates for the Palestinians. The debate focuses entirely on Israel’s perceived imperfections. Instead, pro-Israel advocates should take an offensive posture, shifting the focus of debate onto Palestinian behavior and holding Palestinian leaders accountable for their malfeasance.

In recent years, Israel has fared poorly in the court of public opinion. Palestinian advocates have engaged in a well-organized offensive campaign of disinformation, while Israel and its advocates around the world have remained largely on the defensive.

This posture will guarantee the continued degrading of Israel in the minds of diplomats and the general public. Those who advocate for Israel should respond not defensively but offensively, focusing the world’s attention on the gross malfeasance of the Palestinian National Movement (PNM).

Over the past decade, Palestinian advocates became much better organized, especially on college campuses. The number of chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) has steadily increased. They have a high profile and an aggressive agenda aimed at vilifying Israel and intimidating Jewish students. Many students and faculty, as well as diplomats and the mainstream media, scrutinize Israel under a microscope and condemn it for every perceived imperfection. No country could withstand that level of scrutiny.

In response to this relentless onslaught, most pro-Israel advocates have tended to spend the bulk of their time and energy defending Israel. While well-intended, this approach keeps the spotlight on Israel and gives the Palestinians and their leadership a free pass.

Many Palestinian sites have this news:

The customs police seized, at dawn today, Tuesday, in the Bethlehem governorate, more than 6 tons of [bathroom] tissues produced by settlements, prohibited from trading in the Palestinian market; in order to protect and support the Palestinian local product.

In a statement, the police agency said that the competent authority in the Directorate of National Economy approved the seizure of the mentioned quantity and referred the case to the Public Prosecution to complete the necessary legal procedures according to the rules.

It would be a tragedy if Palestinians started using settlement toilet paper. Who knows what awful diseases could be spread by that?

Gay McDougall is Biden’s nominee for the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and is expected to be confirmed on June 24. Before Biden, Both Clinton and Obama had nominated her the position -- but unlike Biden, neither Bush nor Trump renewed her term.

Why?

In 2002, then-Democrat congressman Tom Lantos, responded to the Durban Conference with an article, The Durban Debacle: An Insider's View of the UN World Conference Against Racism in The Fletcher Forum of Foreign Affairs.

After a hopeful start, it disintegrated into an anti-Ameican, anti-Israeli circus. A number of Islamic states conducted a well-orchestrated effort to hijack the event, and they succeeded...Durban will go down in history as a missed opportunity to advance a noble agenda and as a serious breakdown in United Naitons diplomacy

According to Lantos, the starting point for the corruption of the conference was one of the preliminary conferences -- the one held in Iran.

Gay McDougall responded to Lantos in the following issue of Fletcher with her article, The World Conference against Racism: Through a Wider Lens

On the one hand, McDougall begins with a promising start:

This is not to say that there were no flaws in the Durban process. There were many. I join with Congressman Lantos and other critics who rightly condemn the anti-Semitism that some groups brought to events and activities surrounding the Non-Governmental Forum (NGO Forum). In some places, there was an atmosphere of intimidation and hate against Jewish people. There were cartoons and posters that were hurtful and inappropriate. Additionally, the final NGO document contained language relating to Israel that was inflammatory. In fact, portions of the document proposed by the Jewish caucus were defeated in a process that was intimidating and undemocratic. [emphasis added]

After paying lip service to the "flaws" of intimidation and hate, of inflammatory language and of a process that was intimidating and undemocratic -- once McDougall gets all that out of the way, she sets about justifying the singling out of Israel: "They charge that Israel was the only country singled out for criticism in the Declaration and Programme of Action."

McDougall responds to Lantos's point criticism that Iran refused entry to a number of Israel-friendly entities to the Asian Prepatory Meeting for the WCAR (UN World Conference Against Racism) held in Tehran:

o Israeli passport holders were barred from attending
o  Jewish NGOs were unable to attend
o  Kurdish and Bahai NGO's were barred (despite Robinson protest)
o  Australia and New Zealand were excluded

Lantos sums up Iran's interference:

Apparently, Iranian authorities were willing to go to great lengths to block participation by any state that would actively seek to frustrate their efforts to isolate Israel.

But McDougall actually ignores these details, admitting that the document produced in Tehran "contained harsh criticism of Israeli policies in occupied territories and the treatment of Palestinians and drew an analogy between Israeli policies and apartheid" -- but then, oblivious to how Iran deliberately rigged the proceedings, McDougall claims:

governments, during regional PrepComs, are free to place on the table for discussion issues they determine relevant to the region. These issues are to be for discussion and negotiation only in a lengthy process that would ultimately reflect a global consensus. (emphasis added)

True enough -- providing that those governments have not been blocked from attending those meetings to begin with.

As for the accusation by Arab countries of the OIC at the biased Tehran conference, that Israel is apartheid, McDougall excuses this on the basis that

It is hard to sustain, however, the view that these were issues that had no relevance to the anti-discrimination agenda of the conference or that to debate them was intrinsically anti-Semitic.

In other words, any attack against an opponent can be defended, as long as it can be dressed up as an attack against racism. We see this tactic refined and repeated today all the time, as people are silenced by opponents who accuse them of being racist, white-supremacist, or privileged. The charge of Apartheid is cancel culture writ large.

Lantos's criticism focuses on the singling out of Israel

Indeed, the documents not only singled [Israel] out above all others -- despite the well-known problems with racism, xenophobia and discrimination that exist all over the world -- but also equated its policies in the West Bank with some of the most horrible racist policies of the previous century. Israel, the text stated, engages in "ethnic cleansing of the Arab population of historic Palestine," and is implementing a "new kind of apartheid, a crime against humanity." It also purported to witness an "increase of racist practices of Zionism" and condemned racism "in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racist and violent movements based on racist and discriminatory ideas, in particular, the Zionist movement, which is based on race superiority."

But McDougall's response ignores the fact that Israel was singled out, as if the general problem of racism was actually being addressed in Tehran:

Racism certainly exists in Israel just as it exists in practically every other country in the world. There are no grounds for exempting Israel from the same examination of its policies and practices to which all other states are subject.

McDougall of course is right, all states should be subject to having their policies examined -- just not at that Tehran conference, nor later at Durban.

Nor anywhere else apparently.

In October 2009, UN Watch noted U.N. Discrimination Investigator Focuses on Canada, Ignores China, Sudan, Iran:

Ms. Gay McDougall, the U.N.’s chief monitor of discrimination against minority groups, and a leading defender of the 2001 Durban conference, just wrapped up a 10-day investigation of Canada by accusing it of failures and “significant and persistent problems.” She has never investigated any of the countries listed by Freedom House as the world’s worst abusers: not China, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Burma, Chinese-ruled Tibet, South Ossetia in Georgia, Chechnya in Russia, or Zimbabwe. [emphasis added]

UN Watch makes clear

While it’s perfectly legitimate to hold free societies accountable, the reality is that immigrants of every color and creed rightly seek out Canada as a haven of tolerance, equality and opportunity. UN Watch launched a protest against this U.N. official’s skewed set of priorities: picking on the most tolerant countries like Canada — possibly as U.N. payback for Ottawa being the first of 10 Western governments to pull out of the world body’s ill-fated Durban II conference — while she consistently turns a blind eye to the world’s worst abusers.

The UN Watch piece includes an editorial from The National Post:

Gay McDougall is like a cop obsessed with ticketing jaywalkers, while all around her murders, rapes and muggings are being committed on the street she patrols.

The United Nations’ Independent Expert on minority issues has been on the job for four years. Much of that time she has spent investigating the way humane, pluralistic, industrialized democracies handle their racial and cultural minorities, while foregoing similar inspections of truly abusive regimes

The National Post, like UN Watch, admits that all governments should be open to examination -- and helpfully gives an example of Gay McDougall doing her job:

Undoubtedly, scattered examples of minority maltreatment can be found in any country, if one looks hard enough and uses a loose enough definition of discrimination. In 2007, for instance, the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination told Ottawa to stop using the term “visible minorities” on census forms and other government documents. The phrase, according to the committee, had the potential to be “racially insensitive,” and might lead to “direct or indirect” forms of discrimination based on skin colour.

Oh, the humanity.

The editorial attempts an explanation for the apparent lack of interest, or courage, in examining actual, repressive regimes:

But what is truly missing from Ms. McDougall’s travel schedule is a trip to any of the world’s vilest regimes such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, China, North Korea, Burma or Chad. Together, millions of people have been murdered by the 21 governments that Freedom House judges are the most repressive in the world, many simply for their minority status alone. Millions more have been imprisoned and tortured. Yet not one of these countries has been the subject of one of her inspections, nor are any scheduled to be.

We cannot avoid the impression that Ms. McDougall and the UN human right apparatus as a whole are simply afraid to put truly repressive states under the microscope. Instead they justify their salaries and expense accounts by poring over the workings of liberal democracies for the teensiest infractions.
...But we urge her next time to pick a country truly in need of a rights rebuke. If she dares.

And this is the person Biden has nominated to return to her position on the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Those repressive regimes who should be the primary focus of the head of CRED are no doubt relieved.