Why shouldn't Meni Naftali be allowed to sue the prime minister?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's verbal assault on former Prime Minister's Residence caretaker Meni Naftali during Wednesday's Likud support rally is another example of the ridiculous kind of behavior that only the prime minister can afford. In essence, this behavior boils down to the ability to fearlessly lead a smear campaign against a former employee, who despite being scrutinized and thoroughly looked over, was found to be trustworthy enough to gain entry into the prime minister's home.

Netanyahu's attack on Naftali is a clear-cut case of defamation. Netanyahu certainly knows that statements such as the ones he made against Naftali—in which he alluded to Naftali's alleged sexual harassment of a coworker, as well as to his alleged stealing from the Defense Ministry—are currently being prosecuted at the Herzliya Magistrate's Court, where Naftali is seeking an apology and monetary compensation for a series of slanderous statements made by a people who at the time were basically serving the prime minister. Among them you can find Netanyahu's personal attorney and cousin, David Shimron. So how is it that Netanyahu allows himself to make such outlandish statements? The reason is simple: Netanyahu is hermetically protected. Incredible as it may sound, the man cannot be sued.

Naftali (Photo: Alex Kolomoisky)

The current law effectively grants the prime minister, ministers and all 120 Knesset members immunity from libel suits. This is in order for them to be able to carry out their duties. The problem is that these days, this same law essentially permits any minister or MK to lead an incitement campaign against any citizen or body they choose. This can include any number of journalists, who know their hands are tied, since that they cannot take the prime minister to court over such allegations.

Netanyahu during Wednesday's rally (Photo: Shaul Golan)

The time has come for this to change. Not only because of what Netanyahu said on Wednesday. The existing law was formulated in another era, whereas today almost every MK has a Twitter account or Facebook page, each with thousands of followers, making these platforms their own, independent media outlets. As such, let the representatives elected to public office, the ministers and Netanyahu honor their positions without publishing slanderous remarks. And if they decide to go ahead and spread such comments anyway, have them explain themselves in court, just like any other citizen.

Netanyahu supporters at Wednesday's rally, with a sign that reads, 'Meni Naftali is a criminal' (Photo: Shaul Golan)

Several people in Naftali's inner circle expressed fear that he might face violence following Netanyahu's speech. The court has ruled that the Knesset does not become a "sanctuary city" for elected officials who violate the law, but incitement, unfortunately, is still permitted. As the court put it: "A person who engages in public speaking runs a high risk of being caught in prohibitions related to slander or incitement. Their immunity here is intended to grant them (protection—ed) in this risky area."

When incitement by politicians becomes a daily phenomenon, this situation must be remedied.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Why shouldn't Meni Naftali be allowed to sue the prime minister? : http://ift.tt/2wVFmKb

Pilot season

It's tempting to ask why it was so urgent for the Israel Police to initiate, for one day only, a "pilot" in which the Temple Mount was re-opened for a visit by MKs Yehuda Glick and Shuli Moalem. After all, just two months ago we had the magnometer riots, which took lives and almost ignited the entire area. Anyone who has lived here for more than a minute knows that the Middle East is a powder keg, and the Temple Mount is the fuse. So why do it? So that two of the heads of the Knesset's Shtick department can go up there and take a photograph?

It's tempting to ask why, but it really shouldn't be. Because at the end of the day, the Temple Mount is part of Israel's sovereign territory, and it is astonishing that certain citizens are prevented from praying there. Will riots erupt if this happen? Should we be afraid of provocateurs? Will a war with the Arab countries erupt? Let's break this down: keep the provocateurs away through legal orders and arrest those who won't adhere to them. That's what a sovereign state does. And as for the Arab countries, they are currently busy imploding, so no reason to be afraid from them.

 

Netanyahu (Photo: Shaul Golan)

I am not a religious or a messianic person. I do not reject the existence of a divine element, but at most refer to it philosophically and not through religious practice. I don't harbor a strong desire to go up to the Temple Mount, and most of all I would like to see peace in our neighborhood. That said, I don't understand why the Jordanian Waqf that guards the site forbids Jews from praying there. What would happen if a man uttered a Jewish prayer verse? I also don't understand the believers who act contrary to the prohibition set out by the Chief Rabbinate, for Jews to pray there. And in any case, I don't understand people who think God exists there more so than in any other place.

And yet I think that collective punishment, in the form of making it difficult for members of a religious group to enter a site sacred to them within the borders of the State of Israel, is a very—how to say this—leftist thing to do. 

Mualem

Perhaps most perplexing is that all this comes with the encouragement of the most right-wing prime minister there ever was here, a man who boasts of Israel's authority day in and day out, who speaks at length of our strength and determination, and who refuses to accept the dictations of our enemies. Last May, in a special Jerusalem Day speech, Netanyahu even vowed that "The Temple Mount and Western Wall will always remain under Israeli sovereignty."

Glick (Photo: Eli Mandelbaum)

Somehow, it was this Netanyahu who apparently objected to the police sanctioned "pilot", and only last week prevented Glick and Moalem's temple Mount visit. So which is it? Does he not want Jews there? not even dignified elected officials? Not even those who, like Glick, are from his own party? This is not sovereignty—this is cowardice, expressed most of all through Netanyahu's hypocritical "objection" to such a move. After all, over his many years in power, we have learned that when Netanyahu really wants something, he makes it happens. It is also no less true that when he does not want something, it does not happen.

Alright, so which is it? Either Netanyahu isn't powerful enough to have stopped Mualem and Glick's Temple Mount field day, or his objection was only for show. If the second option is correct, then it is merely the latest slight of hand tricks he has gifted us. And if the first option is correct, Netanyahu can always pray to God to grant him more power—just as long as he doesn't pray on the Temple Mount.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Pilot season : http://ift.tt/2woV11R

We need an immigration policy, not just compassion

One of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's greatest achievements is blocking our southern border.

 

In 2011, while the border fence was being built, more than 2,000 illegal aliens passed through the crossing every month. An entire industry of Bedouin and Egyptian smugglers sprung up around them due to Israel's inefficacy.

Immigrants protesting forced deportation (Photo: EPA)

Those who were able to cross the border received VIP transportation further into Israel, mostly to Tel Aviv's Central Bus Station. A real strategic problem slowly developed under all our noses, until the fence's completion nipped it in the bud. The first to recognize the problem was Ariel Sharon, and the second was Ehud Olmert. The latter of whom came up with the idea of the fence, as well as the idea of sending the migrants to a third country. Meir Dagan, then Mossad chief, flew to Africa on a secret mission and closed a deal. The ideas suggested in light of this situation were all well and good, but it was Netanyahu who actually built the wall. This all served as a backdrop to the High Court Justice's Monday decision, which focuses on the illegal aliens who are already here rather than the ones who are to come.

The migrantion phenomenon is part of a natural economic process. The poor are attracted to wealth. The people of Africa are searching for a route to Europe, and the citizens of Third World countries are looking for their entry ticket into more prosperous countries. Israel was and still is a preferred destination in that regard, a democratic country that—at worst—will arrest you and send you to an open facility in the south, where you'll get to have a ball at the taxpayer's expense.

Illegal aliens detained in the Saharonim facility (Photo: Haim Horenstein)

Tens of thousands of people pass through British detention facilities for illegal migrants every year. The Netherlands built a detention and deportation facility next to one of its airports. Italy—already operating detention facilities in Libya to prevent maritime incursions into its territory—now has several camps on its own land. Australia deports Muslim immigrants from Indonesia to an isolated island. At the start of the Obama administration, 400,000 illegal migrants were deported, in a single year. In general, since the advent of the Syrian Civil War, European countries have been squabbling over where to send hundreds of thousands of refugees arriving by sea to Italy and Greece. The harsh images cropping up over the past couple of years are heart-rending for anyone who's seen them. They haven't, however, canceled the need for an immigration policy. In Israel as well as elsewhere. Footage came to light Tuesday of IDF soldiers volunteering with immigrant children in South Tel Aviv. Channel 20, previously called the "Heritage Channel", attacked them under the heading "political use of IDF soldiers to further the left's agenda." I don't know of any heritage forbidding showing mercy to children, regardless of who they are. Those who feel no mercy towards innocent human beings who have been through hell in order to provide their children with a better life have a problem. Illegal migrants are not the enemy. Having said that, those who mix up healthy leniency and state official policy suffer from a much more serious issue. Evil influences no one except those harboring it in their hearts. Chaos, however, affects everyone. The migrant situation in South Tel Aviv embodies a national failure, and has nothing to do with mercy and the desire to help those children. The Israeli government has formulated an immigration policy similar to other countries. An open detention facility and deportation to a third country. The decision was reasonable and proper compared to what's going on in the rest of the world, especially considering Israel's size and its needs.

But after the Be'er Sheva District Court struck down a petition by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel on the matter, the High Court has now reversed its decision.

(Photo: Mandelbaum Photography)

Absurdly, the High Court of Justice made a double error. The first was to further intervene in the government's decision, and on one of the only topics on which it was able to put together a clear and orderly policy, allowing for a serious and proportional mechanism. The second error was showing lenience instead of discussing policy that not under its purview. The end result is the same: as of now Israel has no sanctions with which to operate against illegal aliens who refuse deportation. Israel currently has no immigration policy.

I don't intend to denigrate the show of leniency, even by judges. But for the court to intercede in a governmental decision, soome red line has to be crossed.

Leniency, by the way, should also be shown to the residents of South Tel Aviv. As such, the Israeli government intends to disperse illegal migrants all across the country, spreading them from one area of concentration over several.

We are responsible to see to the care of those who are already here. but the residents of South Tel Aviv who are Israeli citizens should come before the illegal aliens, who are not. both groups deserve personal compassion, but also a clear-cut policy. The High Court of Justice ruled out the latter option, leaving in place only leniency—each according to their own heart. And that is a mistake.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

We need an immigration policy, not just compassion : http://ift.tt/2vsAImR

Pravda: Russia to continue backing Iran despite PM's exhortations

The declarations were forceful enough. After the meeting between the prime minister and the Russian President Netanyahu spoke in sharp, certain terms on the Iranian entrenchment in Syria and Lebanon. "I expressed the severity of the matter to Putin and made it clear we consider it unacceptable. It's aimed against us and we won't remain indifferent."

His demand was clear: Russia must stand alongside Israel in preventing Tehran's growing efforts to strengthen their hold on the Middle East.

New account emerges of meeting between Netanyahu and Putin (Photo: AFP)

The severity of the situation in the prime minister's eyes cannot be doubted, nor can the manner in which he presented it to Putin. What is less clear, however, is whether the Russian president agreed with any of it—and whether he intends to do anything about it. "According to eye witnesses to the open portion of the talks," reports Pravda in an article describing the meeting, "the Israeli Prime Minister sounded agitated and, at times, even close to panic." Pravda is considered to represent the views of the Russian government and—according to a former high ranking official in the political-security system—the description came from the Kremlin itself. According to the official, Putin is likely behind these harsh assertions. "Despite Netanyahu's emotional state, the Russian leader remained calm," the Russian paper continues. "Putin said 'Iran is Russia's strategic ally in the Middle East,' but added 'Israel is also an important partner of Russia in the region.' He noted Moscow does indeed take the Jewish state's security interests into account." According to the paper's claims, "Netanyahu's worst nightmare came true since Putin rejected his threats." The article stresses Netanyahu failed in his attempt to convince Putin, adding that Russia will continue working to strengthen Tehran's position in the region. "Israel cannot teach the Kremlin how Russian policymakers should shape their Middle Eastern policy," it said. "Russia will continue nurturing and growing Iran's influence in the region opposite the Arab royal houses attempting—along with Israel—to create a NATO-style military alliance receiving instructions from, and subordinated to, the US."

Putin with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (Photo: Reuters)

The conclusion drawn by the high ranking Israeli official, who was privy in the past to all contact between Netanyahu and Putin, was that despite the prime minister's threats to harm the Iranians, we'll nevertheless continue seeing its entrenchment in Syria, shoring up the Assad regime and continuing to arm Hezbollah.

Indeed, even Pravda makes it a point to mention Israel's claims aren't without merit. "Experts say Netanyahu isn't entirely exaggerating when talking about Tehran's plan to expand its influence to the entire Middle East. On August 22 the Iranian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs arrived to Beirut and held talks with Nasrallah. The next day he was received by the Lebanese Prime Minister, who said 'Israel and terrorism are the two major threats Lebanon and the entire Middle East are facing.'"

On Monday, Prime Minister Netanyahu presented UN Secretary-General António Guterres with a similar analysis to the one he described to Putin.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Pravda: Russia to continue backing Iran despite PM's exhortations : http://ift.tt/2xxbMYz

The more things change, the more they stay the same

The Americans have abandoned us. In truth, they have abandoned the entire Middle East, with us in tow. When the other shoe drops, the United States will look after its own interests.

What former US president Barack Obama started, current President Donald Trump is finishing up. There's actually no difference between the two. Their approach to Israeli interests is virtually identical.

Presidents Obama and Trump

And it actually goes back further than that: on 19 June 2007, then-president Geroge H.W. Bush met with then-prime minister Ehud Olmert. It was the pair's last meeting regarding the Syrian nuclear reactor. Bush mentioned the meeting in his memoir, and depicting himself as "America's first Jewish president," a nickname bestowed on him by his mother due to his longstanding support of Israel. Jewish or not, Bush was against attacking. The Americans were up to their necks in the failed "nation-building" exercise in Iraq. A war between Syria and Israel would get in their way. Bush much preferred sending the matter over to the United Nations. To dissolve the threat and let Israel go it alone. The splendid relationship was of no help. Israel's interests interested no one else. 

The relationships between the two countries' leaders were less splendid during the Obama years, as were the interests. The final blow was struck with the nuclear deal with Iran.

Obama doesn't live in the White House anymore. We're in the Trump era now; no one is expecting him to be the messiah anymore, as the rhythm remains the same. The Americans aren't going to lift a finger to stop Iran from marching up to the Israeli border in the Golan Heights. The agreement with Syria is born of a clean-cut American interest to not get involved. Israeli interests were never even considered. Arthur Finkelstein, the American backroom advisor who passed away two weeks ago at the age of 72, was the one who first introduced Israeli politics to the distinction between Jews and Israelis, in 1996. These two identities lead to tribal voting patterns whenever election season comes around. Finkelstein's and other supporters of the Right identify mainly as Jewish, while the Left mainly identifies as Israeli. In underscoring this distinction, Finkelstein picked at the most painful wound Israel has known since its founding. Zionism tried manufacturing a new breed of Jew. An Israeli and a Zionist. To leave the old identity of a Jew in the Diaspora by the wayside. This approach had its fair share of problems, but without removing Jews from the exile-centric identity, the country would not have been formed. Religion was on the fringe within the Zionist movement. Finkelstein—a Diaspora Jew—and his statistical analyses proved the tide has already turned and the trend has changed. He sanctified the Jewish identity over the Israeli one and Netanyahu embraced it. I only bring up Finkelstein since Trump's rhetoric is pro-Israeli, not pro-Jewish. It is reflected in the actions of US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, who has been fighting international attempts to boycott companies operating beyond the Green Line. Trump speaks for Israel, promises to move the American embassy to Jerusalem and appoints Zionist Orthodox Jews to key positions in Middle-Eastern affairs. Meanwhile, in reality, he does nothing. Anyone who sees him as the messiah will find he him to be a false prophet. And this is without knowing what his plans are for "the ultimate deal" in the Middle East. Trump has had a hard time with Jews in America, most of whom are liberals. He's also struggling to fight anti-Semitism. Obama had a hard time with Israelis. In practice, they both do the same thing. Militarily speaking, the US can wipe out the Iranian nuclear project without risking a counterattack. It's the Sunni countries and Israel that will feel that one. Trump is also capable of wiping out the North Korean regime, albeit at a steeper cost. In both cases, the decision to not use military force, made in the days of Bush Sr. and Clinton, has become a strategic liability for the US. Nobody wants to say out loud the only reasonable conclusion: a threat not wiped out militarily cannot be wiped out with agreements. War is a continuation of policy by other means. And when you're dealing with countries on the precipice of nuclear arms, it's the only policy. It is precisely for this reason that Obama's agreement with Iran is a disaster and the agreement with Syria a strategic oversight. Looking forward, Trump will have no one to blame but himself. The problem is Israel doesn't seem to have anyone else to blame, either. Netanyahu had an easy time with the Obama-Kerry administration; with them, he could have a love-hate relationship with them. Trump's embrace is far tighter. On Wednesday, Netanyahu met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. It was a meeting aimed at making peace with the status quo. Just like the old candid camera shows, only without the surprise reveal at the end. The Russians have been working with the Iranians and therefore, by proxy, also with Hezbollah. Iran, an enemy nation, will not be posted on our northern border. Putin knows how to provide maximal coordination, giving his people the word to create supervision mechanisms and airspaces. What he doesn't know, nor wish to know, is how to change the Russian trend of sponsoring Iran and Syria. He has weapons deals and political agreements of a different kind. And, quite frankly, you can't expect anything more of Putin, either.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

The more things change, the more they stay the same : http://ift.tt/2vDDl0n

Our heart is with the Goldins, but they're wrong

Three Israelis are apparently held by Hamas along with the bodies of two soldiers, and the heart aches for their families.

Abera Mengistu entered the Gaza Strip in 2014, Hisham Shaaban al-Sayed entered in 2015, and Juma Ibrahim Abu Anima entered in 2016. The three of them entered the Gaza Strip of their own accord. All three are reportedly mentally ill. The late Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin fell in battle in Operation Protective Edge three years ago.

Simha (L) and Leah Goldin (Photo: Shaul Golan)

For a long time there has been a campaign to bring back the captives and bodies.

We were already in this situation with the struggle for the release of Gilad Shalit—who was a regular soldier when he was kidnapped by Hamas. There had already been prisoner exchange deals, all of which were disgraceful. There had already been deals that increased the appetite of the terrorist organizations. But the disgrace of the Shalit deal surpassed them all.

It was clear that some of those released from the deal, whose only expertise was terror, would return to their previous occupation. It was clear that just as 180 Israelis had been murdered by those released from previous deals, Israelis would also pay their lives in the wake of the new deal.

L to R: Hadar Goldin and Oron Shaul

And that's exactly what happened. One of the released prisoners, Mahmoud Kawasmeh, initiated and commanded the kidnapping and murder of three youths in 2014. All in all, at least eight Israelis are known to have been murdered by those released.

Leah Goldin, the mother of Hadar Goldin, has become the most prominent spokesperson of the current struggle, and her statements are becoming more extreme.

One cannot judge a person in their grief. But the one who hurts, is not always the one who's right. Goldin claimed that they were paying the price for the Shalit deal. It only means that maybe, just maybe, the decision makers understood that with all due respect to the families' struggle, there is no need for another concession that will only increase the level of terrorism.

Gilad Shalit (Photo: AFP)

Most importantly, we have to say what is not really pleasant to say: The fate of bodies and detainees who have entered the Gaza Strip of their own accord is unlike that of a soldier who was abducted during operational service.

Following the resignation of coordinator of activities on the subject of POWs and MIAs, Lior Lotan, Leah Goldin said: "I do not know who the real enemy is. He resigned because his initiatives were sabotaged." As for the defense minister, she added: "What mandate does he have to send soldiers to war if he does not want to return them home? What are these soldiers to him, disposable cups?"

On Sunday, at a press conference, the Goldin family framed Lieberman as "weak and cowardly." Lieberman responded with restraint. He repeated that we must not repeat the mistakes of the Shalit deal. Netanyahu and Lieberman must take into account the pain of the families, which is the pain of most Israelis, but they also have to do, most importantly, what is best for the nation. And according to that, there is no room for another chapter in the march of folly.

Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman (Photo: AFP)

And no, it's not simple. After all, we are dealing with the people's lives. The Goldin family does not pressure for the release of terrorists. It demands tougher treatment of the Gaza Strip and prisoners of Hamas as a means of exerting pressure on the government in Gaza. Why should we transfer fuel and raw materials? Why not stipulate our ongoing supply of the strip in the return of the prisoners and bodies? Because it is doubtful whether, in the difficult conditions in Gaza, this will accomplish anything. After all, the residents of Gaza have never been the main concern of Hamas leaders. After all, long ago Hamas could have decided on an agenda of growth and prosperity instead of investing in an industry of death, but its choice is known.

Will further pressure lead to change? Depends on what change you seek, as the greater the distress in the Gaza Strip, the more Hamas receives international support.

The detainees will not be released, but there will be more flotillas of "rights activists." More hardships will not bring hundreds of thousands to the streets to demonstrate against Hamas's new leader, Yahya Sinwar, who was released from the Shalit deal himself. On the contrary, it will strengthen Hamas.

Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar (Photos: AP, EPA)

Israel must make every effort to bring about the release of the detainees and the bodies. But "every effort" is not "any price," and the confusion between the two concepts has already cost us in blood.

Creative ideas are needed. Perhaps even taking certain risks, but one thing should not be an argument: We were already in this situation. There was already a concession. The same disgrace must not be repeated.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Our heart is with the Goldins, but they're wrong : http://ift.tt/2xs1vNw

The last High Court appeal?

There is a good chance that the High Court of Justice (“Bagatz”) deliberation that will take place at the Supreme Court on the Last day of August will be the capstone to more than 30 years—thirty years!—of Supreme Court discussions on the very same topic, the Western Wall. The panel of judges will be led by Chief Justice Naor. It is not my place to rate her performance, but in a very wise move, she agreed, over the objection of the Attorney General, to go beyond the letter of the law and permit the Chief Rabbinate to file an independent brief, as if the State Rabbinate is not one of the arms of government represented by the State Prosecutor’s office but rather a separate entity free to interpret the law as it sees fit.

The Chief Justice even agreed to delay the urgent session by a month. However, she added an interesting sentence to the decision to grant the delay: “Should any of the parties have additional requests (and this should not be construed as encouragement to file such requests), they should take care to file them within 7 days of this date.” Chief Justice Naor, it would appear, was looking to head off any future argument on anyone’s part that s/he would like to request an ‘additional hearing’ because his or her voice had not been heard. She is signaling to all of us that the Supreme Court will soon have its say and that its decision will be, so I hope, clear-cut. And unambiguous. And final.

Photo: Amit Shabi

It has cost the State Rabbinate (i.e., us) tens of thousands of shekels to obtain that lengthy, overwrought legal brief it has submitted to the Court, a brief which has nothing in common with our system of jurisprudence. The State Rabbinate has gone so far as to argue that the Supreme Court of the State of Israel has no authority to adjudicate matters related to the Western Wall. That, the Rabbinate claims is extraterritorial, a sort of mini-Vatican, where the Chief Rabbinate alone may exert authority.

This legal argument rests on a 1924 “King’s Order in Council,” the instrument through which the British ruled their colonies, among them Mandate Palestine. In the face of decades of High Court decisions and a panoply of precedents, this legal argumentation might be more appropriate for a paper in a first year law school course in constitutional law, but not only did it cost us dearly, it is also infuriating from a Zionist perspective. I imagine that the court will remind the honorable Chief Rabbis that their salary is no longer paid by King George V but rather by the State of Israel.

Photo: Amit Shabi

The Chief Rabbinate’s position ultimately will be just a footnote. It is the position adopted by the government that is so painful. I don’t envy those who will present it in court. In the last deliberation on this matter a few months ago, before the government rescinded its agreement to the compromise plan, the justices entered the courtroom, turned straightaway to the State Prosecutor’s counsel, and asked, “Nu? What will be?” He was asked this question by Chief Justice Naor, and he understood just how much this blunt, direct question, requiring no prefaces or niceties, was both spot-on and all-encompassing. He responded, deftly weaving, absorbing the judges’ anger at the government’s foot-dragging, but he promised that any moment now things would be moving along. He spoke in praise of compromise, but he explained that its implementation was coming along slowly. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say now.

We did everything possible not to be in court again. Honestly, we have been dragged there. We conducted a negotiation in good faith. We gave in on things we never dreamt that we would forgo. In order to settle the dispute once and for all, we even convinced ourselves to accept the discredited, perhaps anti-democratic principle of “separate but equal.” OK, you take the old familiar Western Wall, we said, and we will take the less well-known section, which is nonetheless not “the Kotel,” and we will lovingly tend to its development. We gave in on the matter of recognition, too, accepting only a certain amount of representation on the management council of the mixed-gender site.

We gave in on not having explicit reference to those “abhorrent” terms, Reform and Conservative, in the by-laws for that sacred place in order to placate the Haredi ministers. And the list goes on from there. I am even embarrassed about some of the things we gave in on. But we never imagined that the Government of Israel would treat us this way. We never thought we would be taken for a ride like this.

We come before the court with clean hands. We have tried. We have done our best. We have sought peace and pursued it. But on the other side there is no partner. It is not only the government of Israel that needs the court to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. The entire Jewish people looks now to that court.

Yizhar Hess is the CEO of the Masorti Movement.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

The last High Court appeal? : http://ift.tt/2wbnauM

We didn't retreat. We gave it up for peace

A few days before the IDF ended its withdrawal from Sinai in 1982, a unit of reservists soldies (or perhaps it was the act of an individual) raided an IDF stations in Sinai and scrawled: "We did not retreat. We gave it up for peace" in graffiti. The IDF then reliquished control of several important bases, as well as thousands of square kilometers of desert and mountainous terrain.

The graffiti's writers did not know it, but with those few words they managed to outline a new Israeli policy in the political battle against the Arab countries: We are not retreating, we are giving it up for peace. Perhaps this is the right time to adopt this terminology, instead of presenting ourselves as "the cock of the walk" who can never surrender or lose in battle. We gave it up. We drove 80 kilometers back, we cleared out the entire Sinai Peninsula. Not "disengaged," not "evacuated," heaven forbid, no escape or capitulation—we gave it up.

The Sinai Desert (Photo: Roie Kais)

In the new reality of our region the Iranians are approaching the Israeli border in Syria and Lebanon, together with the army of Bashar al-Assad and Lebanon-based Hezbollah, looking toward the liberation of al-Quds (the Arab name for Jerusalem) from the occupation of the "Zionist entity." The struggle against the spread of Iran's hold on Syria and Lebanon is liable to escalate into war—and in recent days we have heard voices that do not rule out this possibility. Another option would be to adopt the principles of the Saudi peace initiative in order to finally reach the negotiations stage, followed by deal with the Palestinians and a solidifying of our relationship with the more moderate Sunni states in the struggle against Iran and its affiliates. From there, we must start the fight, for an agreement or for war, in the battle for Jerusalem, and not leave considerations to the last minute.

If we know in advance that we will finally relinquish control of some of the territories in Jerusalem that we annexed in 1967, for example, why bring about the deaths of hundreds of soldiers who might fall in battle over the same neighborhoods and villages? (During the Six-Day War some 180 soldiers were killed in battles fought in the neighborhoods in Jerusalem). The idea here is very simple: give up without a fight what can and should be relinquished, within the framework of an agreement. And before it, Israel must delineate in advance the borders that must be fought or not fought.

Should we completely withdraw to Israel's 1967 borders for the price of a peace agreement? The answer is no. There is a limit to the price Israel can afford to pay. Some will say we could have done the same in previous wars, and the answer to this would be—true. But it's not the same now, in that a current deal would grant us the kind of peace agreement that we have had with Egypt for 40 years and with Jordan for 23. Our neighbors do not like us, but when there is quiet on the border, you can live without love.

The situation is reminiscent of the joke about a Russian oligarch (or a German or Frenchman or anyone else) who saw a Bedouin in the desert sitting under a tree and enjoying his life, with fruit falling from the tree every so often and him proceeding to eat it. "Go to work, and after you have accumulated money, you can sit peacefully under a tree and eat its fruit," the oligrach teases. "And what am I doing now?" asked the Bedouin. Many of us want to be like the Bedouin—like him, we eat from the fruits of the tree (ie, peace), without paying the price.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

We didn't retreat. We gave it up for peace : http://ift.tt/2wKm0ba

Obama chose dishonor, and Israel will have war

Iran is taking over Syria. The distant enemy is coming closer. The US is out of the picture. Those who put their trust in the new world sheriff, Donald Trump, have to admit he appears to be far more concerned with the American media than the Iranian imperialism. That is who he is. The world's sheriff is not whoever has more power—the United States has a lot more—but whoever uses the power he has.

Netanyahu had to go to Vladimir Putin this week again for another round of talks with the Russian leader during his vacation in Sochi. It's not clear whether Putin is going to stop the Iranian threat. It is clear, however, that he's the only one there is any point in talking to.

Iranian President Rouhani (Photo: AFP)

ISIS has been defeated on the ground. Over the last year, its fighters have been pushed out of Mosul in Iraq, and in the coming year, probably, they'll also be pushed out of Syria's Raqqa, the caliphate's capital. The problem is that the alternative for ISIS on the ground—Iran and Hezbollah—is just as bad.

The strengthening and spreading of Iran's influence were made possible, inter alia, because of the nuclear deal. European nations were quick to court the country that got Barack Obama and John Kerry's stamp of approval. Most of the sanctions were lifted. Europe rushed to renew the massive deals and oil purchases. In the five months that followed the sanctions' removal, Iranian exports—excluding oil—grew by $19 billion. The oil production soared from an average of 2.5 million barrels a day during the sanctions to close to 4 million barrels a day in recent months. The billions increased accordingly.

Iranian troops fighting ISIS in Syria.

Many of the heads of Israel's defense establishment, unlike Netanyahu, determined the nuclear deal was the lesser of evils. Its advantages, they claimed, outweigh its shortcomings.

I'm afraid they were wrong. The Iranian threat was twofold: Both the development of nuclear weapons and regional subversion. It is possible there is a temporary waning of the first threat. The second threat, meanwhile, continues growing. Iran is stirring the pot: it has militant affiliates in Yemen; it is fighting in Iraq and turning it into a protected state; Syria is also becoming a protected state; and Lebanon, for a long time now, has been under the control of Iran's proxy, Hezbollah.

The Iranian architects of the nuclear deal: Foreign Minister Zarif and nuclear chief Salehi (Photo: AP)

Between Iran and Israel there is a growing, ever expanding territorial corridor under Iranian control, and the Shiite nation is planning on building a sea port in Syria, perhaps an airport as well. This didn't happen because of the nuclear agreement, but there is no doubt the nuclear agreement served to bolster Iran and its expansionist aspirations.

Obama and Kerry managed to mislead the international community in general—and the American public in particular—by claiming the alternative to the agreement was war. That's not true. The alternative was continuing and the sanctions and imposing additional, harsher sanctions. Only then, it might have been possible to deal with both threats. Now, it is too late.

Misled the international community: Obama and Kerry (Photo: AP)

Most of the time, Netanyahu's conduct was appropriate. He was among those who pushed for the sanctions on Iran. He spurred the international community into action. But at some point, something went wrong. Netanyahu became a nuisance. Instead of showing a little more flexibility on the Palestinian issue, in order to get more on the Iranian issue, he made himself the American administration's enemy on both matters. The result was a complete failure. Iran's nuclear capabilities were not curbed, and Tehran is now turning into a regional power. Britain, said Winston Churchill, was "given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war." As time goes on, it becomes all the more apparent Obama has chosen dishonor. Iran is becoming a world power, and Israel might pay with another war.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Obama chose dishonor, and Israel will have war : http://ift.tt/2xm8Uhl

When it comes down to it, love should trump hate

Michael Chabon is one of the most prominent Jewish writers in the US. The description of a "Super Jew" suits him particularly well, as he writes a lot about Jews in his extraordinarily humorous way.

Last week, Chabon and his wife, author Ayelet Waldman, published an open letter to "our fellow Jews, in the United States, in Israel, and around the world." The letter was born following the neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville and US President Donald Trump's response to the events, with Waldman and Chabon calling on Jews who hold senior positions in the Trump administration to resign, and advisiing Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, to get away from their father/-in-law. The advice they give to Ivanka is especially harsh: "Allow us to teach you an ancient and venerable phrase, long employed by Jewish parents and children to one another at such moments of family crisis: I’ll sit shiva for you. Try it out on your father; see how it goes."

Chabon (L) and Waldman (Photo: AP)

The letter, however, drew my attention because of another paragraph, addressed to Jews who explain their support for Trump through the support he might give Israel. "You have viewed him as a potential friend to Israel, or a reliable enemy of Israel’s enemies," they write. "Sheldon Adelson and our other fellow Jews still engaged in making the repugnant calculation that a hater of Arabs must be a lover of Jews, or that money trumps hate, or that a million dollars’ worth of access can protect you from one boot heel at the door: Wise up."

One can argue with the degree of emotion that the two authors invest in their fight against Trump's embarrassing statements. Simcha Erlich, who served as finance minister in Begin's first government, once admitted in a moment of candor: "I don't say what I mean, and I don't mean what I say." Trump could use this statement in his next tweet.

But it is hard to dispute their claim that many Jews, in Israel and around the world, think that hating Arabs purifies and and all vermins, be they a neo-Nazi, a Ku Klux Klan member or a Hungarian fascist. If they hate Arabs they must therefore be a Jew lover and loyal supporter of the State of Israel.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. This perception is indicative of historical shortsightedness and even worse, a morality system that has gone off the rails. There seems to be no escape from concluding that while Islamic terrorism may have been defeated in battle, it won out within our consciousness. It caused reivers of blood to pour through the Arab world, sowing separation, fear and hatred while not winning a single achievement for Islam, while the West became racist as a result. Rather, it revived racism, which had been suppressed after the defeat of Nazi Germany, and made it the norm. Trump is not a racist; he is worse than a racist—he is an ignorant populist who caters to his voters.

But where are we in this story? Unfortunately, nowhere good. Terrorism has also made racism the norm in the state of the Jewish people. Racism flows through social networks, radio talk shows, politicians' statements. I find it in my Inbox. Readers may watch videos from the neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, but their ears are deaf to the voices calling out "Jews will not replace us." Their hearts are with the white man who believes in the superiority of his own race, not with the black man or the Jewish liberal demonstrating against him. The white man is correct, he's one of us. The black man is different, he's a leftist, a traitor.

This is odd, because the attitude toward others in Israel has not been cut in the past according to the boundaries of the right and left. You could find the hatred of Arabs on the left and on the right. And you could find a true willingness to live together on the left and on the right. Reuven Rivlin, Mosha Arens, and Yoel Ben-Nun represent the Right's legacy no less, and perhaps more so than Miri Regev or Yariv Levin. One can support the unity of Israel without being a racist; and it is possible to support a withdrawal to the 1967 lines and to be a sworn racist.

The settlements and territories have long ceased to be at the heart of this debate: most Israelis do not care them either way. The debate is about what defines us—is a love for Israel, or a hatred of Arabs? The choice is ours.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

When it comes down to it, love should trump hate : http://ift.tt/2wOfI9G

Does 'Never Again' only apply to us?

Twenty-five years ago, when I was a young settler, on Holocaust Martyrs 'and Heroes' Remembrance Day, I had stomach-wrenching conversation with a close relative. Think about it, he said, if the Nazis had murdered six million Arabs instead of the Jews, would we not have praised them or at least let it slide? I thought about it and I replied: If the Nazis had murdered six million Muslims, we probably wouldn’t have had a state.

Both parts of this conversations are probably not politically correct, but 25 years later, it appears that contempt for the Holocaust among central components of the Israeli Right has shifted from random conversations to the heart of public discourse. More and more Israeli Jews dare to express openly or implicitly that the main problem with the Holocaust was the selection of victims by Nazi Germany and their aides.

Nazi concentration camp (Photo: Reuters)

For years, one of the most problematic exports of the State of Israel has been the cheapening and trivialization of the Holocaust, bordering on subtle hints of denial. This happens, for example, by comparing every adversary or enemy to the Nazis. This isn’t a phenomenon limited to a bunch of internet talkbackers.The prime minister himself is among the primary culprits in this field. Then there is, for example, the peculiar lesson learned from the terrible tragedy: never again, as long as we are talking about us. That was the lesson we appeared to have taken when we were silent when a million Rwandans were slaughtered. Similarly, we refused to recognize the Armenian genocide, and we have simply used the atrocities in Syria as a propaganda tool. In recent weeks we have seen an escalation of this kind of behavior.The masks have been removed and the interests are on the table for all to see. Everything is measured in the context of confrontation: Are you with us or against us? Anti-Semitic campaigns in Hungary against George Soros? Well, Soros if left-wing so we will let that slide.

Neo-Nazis in the US

As a journalist affiliated with the right wrote: "It is clear that anti-Semitism is obscene, but there are interests." A ghastly demonstration of neo-Nazis in Virginia? Not pleasant, but hey, look at the leftists; When the president compares the Nazis to anti-neo-Nazis, everything is fine. Nothing happened. A few people with torches and swastikas? What could happen? If a Nazi-style leader was to rise up today and execute millions of Muslims, would Israeli right-wing politicians express a firm stand against it? Would he cry out "Never again"? I'm afraid the answer is no because in the State of Israel, 70 years later and a little after the Holocaust, when all chants of "Never again" are said and done, there is always a “but” to defend some small interest.

Jews rounded up in the Holocaust

This is not a process which we have seen taking shape in Israel alone of course. The era of social networking has almost completely erased any semblance of political correctness, providing the exact conditions required for demagogues like Donald Trump and Oren Hazan to blossom. It has enabled propagators of hatred and professional separatists to be rejuvenated, because they "speak with no beating around the bush," as if their words carry supreme value.

Destruction in Syria (Photo: AFP)

 Perhaps this is also one of the reasons why values ​​and morals are measured today in the world, which are supposed to be absolute, within parameters of interests: if it serves our interests, we will make do with closing our nose to the smell of death and destruction and our eyes to the site of savagery and slaughter. In extreme cases, we may issue a condemnation a few days after the tragedy. Perhaps it is the arrogant education that prevails at home, repeating the mantra, "you have chosen us from all the nations," and expressions like "virtuous people" that have been deeply planted in my DNA that evokes such emotions demanding more actions from Israel. But from a people who have suffered the Holocaust I expect only one call: Nazis and their heirs are bad, without buts and without interests.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Does 'Never Again' only apply to us? : http://ift.tt/2wa5TQZ

Iran, not so far away

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Moscow visit on Wednesday can be seen to signal a change for the worse and a significant, national security risk in the making. The civil war in Syria is nearing an end, and it appears that the coalition of President Bashar al-Assad, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia has won. If this victory would lead solely to the stability of Assad's regime, Israel should have been able to accept this. The problem is that Iran demands compensation for the many resources it invested in the war: already the de facto ruler in Lebanon through its control over Hezbollah, Iran is now looking to recreate a similar power dynamic for itself in Syria.

In concrete terms, the Iranians want to establish a second Hezbollah, a force of Shiite militias that will be deployed on the Golan Heights along the border with Israel, and which will get its instructions from Tehran. When such a situation occurs, any confrontation with Hezbollah will lead to a wider confrontation that will include the Syrian arena. Moreover, Assad, who, weakened, finds himself grateful to Iran, will be committed to helping in this endeavor. As such, a confrontation with Hezbollah could quickly lead to a full-scale war between Israel and Syria.

Looking toward Syria from the Israeli Golan Heights (Photo: Reuters)

Israel's response to this dangerous possibility is limited. Countries act according to self-interests. It will not help us explain to the American administration or to the Russians why Iran's expansion all the way to the Mediterranean is bad for us. Nor will it necessarily help if we explain to Putin that strengthening of Iran's presence in Syria contradicts Russia's interests in the long term. Communicating to all the Sunni states, and namely Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, that Iran's establishment in Syria interferes with their own prerogatives, won't be enough to block Iran's advancement, as these states are too weak to manage such a feat.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Photo: EPA)

The way Iran is for Israel to push a four-pronged approach. First, it needs to convince the US to agree to a deal with Putin that would have the US cancel the economic sanctions it has placed on Russia, while also recognizing Russia's presence in eastern Ukraine, in return for Russia's preventing the Iran's continued presence in Syria.

Hezbollah tanks fire on Syria-Lebanon border (Photo: AP)

Second, Israel must make it clear to Russia that the IDF will take action to prevent Iran from building any kind of military force of its own near the Golan Heights border. In the past two years, Israel and Russia have managed to reach a quiet understanding that apparently enabled the Israeli Air Force to attack inside Syria while Russia turned a blind eye. After Russia has achieved what it wants in Syria and has no interest in another military escalation that would jeopardize its achievements. A firm and credible Israeli message on this issue will oblige Putin to take it into account.

Satellite shots of Syrian and Iranian missile warehouses (Photo: Reuters)

Third, Israel will have to explain to both its allies and its enemies that if Hezbollah starts a military campaign against us, it will not be fought only against Hezbollah alone, but as an all-out war between the countries of Israel and Lebanon. This approach is both just and wise: it is just because the Lebanese president has openly claimed that Hezbollah is part of Lebanon's defensive force. And it is wise because no one, certainly not Saudi Arabia, Europe and the US, but even Syria or Iran, would want Lebanon to be destroyed.

IDF forces practice near Syrian border (Photo: IDF Spokesperson's Unit)

Fourth, it would benefit Israel to exploit the hatred of those living in the Syrian Golan against Iran and Hezbollah. Israel can and should discreetly strengthen its ties with these people far beyond the aid it gives to Syrians wounded it the country's civil war. Israel has so far refrained from becoming too involved in Syria's internal conflict, but in light of the changing reality, the need to cultivate true allies who are close to the Golan Heights border is growing fast.

Israeli Golan Heights hit by Syrian spillover (Photo: Avihu Shapira)

For the first time in many years, Israel is in danger of facing a detrimental regional development, and it is therefore warranted to dedicate all the attention and efforts required to properly address this situation.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Iran, not so far away : http://ift.tt/2vaDWeB

Can Greenblatt succeed where his predecessors failed?

The serious clashes on the Temple Mount and in the West Bank and the incident at the Israeli embassy in Amman last month were US President Donald Trump's administration's first foray into the deep end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The president's special envoy to the peace process, Jason Greenblatt, traveled to the region to aid in resolving the crisis and got to see Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's outrageous and irresponsible behavior up close.

The former capitulated to demands by Bayit Yehudi Head Naftali Bennett and ignored the IDF and Shin Bet's recommendations on placing metal detectors at the Temple Mount, while the latter announced the PA was stopping security coordination with Israel at such an explosive and dangerous timing.

At the same time, Greenblatt saw how Jordan's King Abdullah resolved the crisis by putting together the deal that led to the removal of the metal detectors and the release of the Israeli embassy guard.

Trump's Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt meets with Prime Minister Netanyahu (Photo: Koby Gideon, GPO)

These events should serve as an important lesson for Greenblatt, a diligent and smart man who takes his job seriously, as he returns to the region. If he wishes to succeed, he must encourage more involvement by regional leaders in the peace process. At the same time, he should make it clear to Netanyahu and Abbas that he is not here to manage local crises or solve their political problems, but to help reach a peace accord. Everyone knows more or less how the peace deal would look like. The Saudi peace initiative, which seems more relevant than ever in light of the recent changes in the Middle East, is the most convenient basis for an agreement between Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab world. To succeed in his mission, Greenblatt needs to work to create an updated and revised version of the initiative. Its basic principles—a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, land swaps, recognition of Israel by the entire Arab world, and an agreed upon resolution on Jerusalem—were and remain the only formula to resolving the conflict. However, there are several things Greenblatt can and should add to the initiative to make it even more relevant and adjust it to fit the current security climate. The first, and most important, adjustment is making it clear to the Palestinians and the Arab world there would be no Right of Return to Israeli territory. The solution for the Palestinian refugees and their descendents should be found within the borders of the Palestinian state. Another fundamental change necessary is excluding the Golan Heights from the equation: The original Saudi initiative includes Israeli withdrawal from the Golan, but today the most reasonable and responsible move for the safety of all countries in the region is the recognition of the Golan Heights as Israeli territory. As part of significant progress in the peace process, the Arab states would support such a decision.

Trump's Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt meets with Palestinian President Abbas (Photo: Reuters)

An additional change, no less important, is adding an in-depth section on security. For the citizens of Israel, this is the most important issue in any agreement. Without strict and stable security arrangements, Israel would not be able to make compromises on other issues. To that end, a comprehensive security plan should be added to the existing initiative, similar to the one prepared by US Gen. John Allen in 2013, which would include Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley for 15 years following the signing of the agreement, as well as Israeli presence at border crossings. The Palestinian state would be demilitarized: it wouldn't have an army, but it would have a well-trained police force and internal security forces to ensure the stability of the government. Israel would maintain control over the airspace. There is already successful security cooperation between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan. A peace agreement would allow to expand this cooperation, improve upon it, and bring additional Middle East nations into in. This would create a broad coalition against Iran, ISIS and other terror organizations. Trump is committed to the war on terror, and in his talks with Arab leaders, such as King Abdullah and President al-Sisi, they explicitly told him how much an Israeli-Palestinian agreement could aid in achieving this fight. Despite all of the media spins and lies, most of the Palestinians want to know that at the end of the day they will have an independent Israel, while most Israelis want to know Israel will remain a Jewish, democratic, strong and safe country. The strategic situation in the region today is the most conducive it has been in years to making progress in the peace process. The Trump administration, which has so far failed to reach any achievement it could be proud of—neither internal nor international—needs to put its hope on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Now, Greenblatt is put to the test: Will he be remembered as the mediator who helped reach a breakthrough, or as another diplomat who failed and then wrote a memoir about the experience? The writer is a major general in reserves.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Can Greenblatt succeed where his predecessors failed? : http://ift.tt/2vgYZrQ

High Court left with fixing government's foolish decisions

The cancelation of the Western Wall egalitarian prayer area plan and the Settlement Regulation Law have been subject to stormy public debate, and rightly so. The two issues have reached the High Court's desk, and it is the High Court that would have to determine what to do with them. Several days ago, the High Court of Justice issued a temporary injunction against the Regulation Law. The Movement for Governance and Democracy condemned the injunction. A justified condemnation. Except this time, for a change, it is not the court's fault. It's the government's fault.

  The cancelation of the Western Wall plan and the Regulation Law have become landmarks. It may have been possible to allow a limited Regulation Law, inside the major settlement blocs, in areas Israel is expected to keep even under peace deals offered by the left wing. A similar law was passed by the government in the Turkish part of Cyprus and was even approved by the European Court of Human Rights. But if the law can apply to any hill in Judea and Samaria, it becomes a law that causes damage to Israel. This isn't a left-wing position. This is the position taken, in the early stages, by Benjamin Netanyahu and Naftali Bennett. But capitulation to the demands of the radical right wing has led to this unfortunate legislation.

Reform Jews praying at the Western Wall

 It's the same story with the cancelation of the Western Wall egalitarian prayer area plan. There is no argument between the Left and the Right, or between the judiciary and the executive. The Western Wall plan was proposed and regulated and approved by the current government, with the mediation of Natan Sharansky, the chairman of the Jewish Agency. But the ultra-Orthodox know Netanyahu can be easily pressured. He acquiesced and caused one of the most serious crises between Israel and American Jewry. He shouldn't have capitulated to begin with, because the ultra-Orthodox have no alternatives. They wouldn't have quit the coalition. Their threat was an idle one. So why did Netanyahu capitulate on both issues? Why did he lend a hand to decisions that hurt our national interests? Well, it happened because Netanyahu knew both decisions would reach the High Court. And, after all, the High Court's job is to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. But it's not a given the High Court would dance to Netanyahu's tune. It's not a given the Regulation Law would be struck down, despite having been frozen with an injunction, and it's not a given the High Court would overturn the decision to freeze the Western Wall plan. After all, the High Court is expected to act with restraint. Herein lies the problem. The right-wing coalition allows itself, under Netanyahu's leadership, to make foolish decisions just to satisfy their voters. The right-wing politicians treat their voters as a volatile and stupid mob that needs to be fed its pound of flesh every few days. They're wrong. Most of the right-wing voters don't support canceling the Western Wall plan and would not have gone to the barricades even if the Knesset didn't vote on the Regulation Law.

The illegal settlement of Amona, the likes of which could benefit from the Regulation Law (Photo: Topview)

And just to show the problem is not between religious and secular, or right and left: it was only on Tuesday that Aryeh Deri called Tzohar Rabbi David Stav a "Reform Jew," which in Orthodox circles is considered to be an insult of the highest degree. Stav's sin is that the rabbis of the organization Tzohar, which he numbers among its leaders, oppose to the capitulation to the ultra-Orthodox. These politicians prefer to make the harmful decisions and put these hot potatoes on the High Court's plate. That way they could tell themselves and those they consider a "mob" that they "did the right thing," because they proposed the legislation for the settlers, while on the other hand they hope—at least the serious ones among them—that the High Court would overturn these decisions to save Israel from itself, or at least from the anti-national coalition that governs it. Even if the High Court does overturn both of the decisions, the damage to relations with American Jews has already permeated. Because of both the unnecessary Regulation Law and the cancelation of the Western Wall plan, Israel is viewed in the world as a little less democratic and a little less enlightened. The public discourse on the topic, and not just in the Jewish press, continues making waves. But to hell with national interests. Netanyahu's priorities are more cynical and less Zionist, and we're all paying the price.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

High Court left with fixing government's foolish decisions : http://ift.tt/2xc0EQT

With friends like Putin and Trump, Israel doesn't need enemies

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

Op-ed: Israel set clear red lines in Syria, stopping numerous Iranian arms convoys from reaching Hezbollah. But what is Israel going to do when the Russians and Americans finalize an agreement to end the war in Syria, which would allow Tehran to establish itself in the Golan and put its soldiers right on our border? With friends like Putin and Trump, Israel doesn't need enemies : http://ift.tt/2w2J3Lb

Turning a blind eye to extreme Right or Left anti-Semitism

There was no need to wait for the neo-Nazi rally staged by white supremacists in Charlottesville to know that something is wrong with the parts of American society. There was no need to wait for the response of the US president, who blamed “both sides,” to know that these problematic elements have permeated the highest echelons of the US political system. The claim that Donald Trump is not an anti-Semite because his daughter and grandson are Jewish is total folly. In the age in which Jews too, sadly, can be anti-Semites and racists, Trump’s Jewish family members do not make him immune from such accusations. Before the elections in the US, I wrote time and again about anti-Semitic signs being displayed by Trump and his followers. My friends on the Right were not enamored of what I was writing. From their point of view, this was almost akin to blasphemy against the messiah, who is supposed to lend a free hand to the settlement enterprise and to every right-wing whim. Their saviour delivered the contemptible condemnation of “both sides.” There are two sides: racists and anti-Semites. For Trump, they are of equally worthy of contempt. That is who the man is. He is an historic disaster. According to research that was published by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in February, in the last decade 372 people have been killed in instances involving political extremism. 74% of the murders were committed by right-wing extremists, 24% by Islamic extremists and just 2% by left-wing extremists. That includes nationalists from the African-American community. In other words, talk of “both sides” is more “fake news” being spewed out of the White House.

It must be pointed out however, in 2016 there was a decline in involvement of white racists in acts of murder. But their current prominence and development since the the ascent of Trump, and the neo-Nazi demonstrations in Charlottesville, is a cause for grave concern among Jews.

But we cannot remain blind to the fact that anti-Semitism does not only take root in far-right circles. Its manifestations has been a constantly accompanying political and academic elites on the left for two decades. And no, we are not merely talking about fringe groups, nor about officials occupying junior positions.And no, this is also not merely a phenomenon restricted to the margins of American establishments. John Mearsheimer, one of the most prominent professors in the US, and one of the most established best-selling authors known for his vitriolic attacks against the pro-Israel lobby in the US, penned a blurb praising a book authored by Gilad Atzmon, a former Israeli, himself Jewish, and self-declared anti-Semite, whose opinions about Jews are absolutely identical, and sometimes even more despicable, than those espoused by the racists of Charlottesville. Another renowned author is Professor Richard A. Falk, also Jewish, who is known mainly for his role as a special advisor to the UN Security Council, and as someone who stood behind a vicious report against Israel. And the list goes on. Rasmea Odeh, a Palestinian terrorist who managed to received citizenship in the US by concealing her past, has been holding farewell events ahead of her expulsion from the US. The fact that Odeh killed two Israelis did not stop many people on the Left from turning her into a heroine. Nor did her continued incitement campaign against Israel. Odeh was a respected guest at the last annual gathering of the Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) where she called for the destruction of Israel. Her calls were met with a loud applause by her listeners and a hug from the female rabbi, woe to her, Alissa Wise who is one of the leaders of the JVP. Only recently, Wise was barred entry into Israel for her support for the BDS movement. Needless to say, that according to the definition of anti-Semitism that was recently approved by the European Parliament, both Wise and Odeh are anti-Semites in every sense of the word. David Duke, the former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and one of the most prominent members of white supremacist today, expresses opinions which perfectly align with those expressed by the anti-Zionist Left. Duke was one of the first to come out in support of Mearsheimer's anti-Israel book, just as he was one of the more prominent Trump supporters. Not only do those two facts not contradict one another, but they reflect the very same ideology. The very same language is being adopted by the Black Lives Matter activists, who have latched onto not only the BDS movement but also the horrific propaganda purporting Israel is committing war crimes. Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same. Alt-left and Alt-right are one and the same. They are not two sides of the same coin. They are exactly the same side.

One would assume that were I an American, I'd stand with the protestors against the Alt-right. My only question would be: where were Trump's many detractors—who are right in everything they say against the man—when the Left produced so many anti-Semitic diatribes? Why were they silent? Precious few, such as journalist Jeffrey Goldberg and Professor Alan Dershowitz, published scathing criticism of it. But the rest of their friends in the academic elite were dead silent. Racism, all racism, is reprehensible. But the display of racism by the neo-Nazis is Charlottesville was another thing entirely, not only because of its nature, but also because it received forgiveness from the president of the most important power in the world. That is a terrifying reality. I went on vacation to the French island of Corsica. Filipe Ben Shushan, a French-Jewish movie producer, (whose movie is now screening in Israeli cinemas) invited me to a meeting called “Israel Corsica” as a symbol of friendship between the two countries. Corsica isn’t exactly a country. A two hour drive away, he said, on mountainous roads. I didn’t know if that would be fun, I said to myself, but it had to be an experience. And indeed, it absolutely was an experience. The meeting was held in the commune of Pianello on the island where 40 people were supposed to attend. A few were Jews and a few were locals but what was most surprising of all was the arrival of almost 200 attendants. Even a respected guest showed up, Edmond Simeoni, one of the leaders of the national movement in Corsica and a mythological figure among the local residents. It was worthwhile to attend just to hear him speak. Corsica, it is worth mentioning, was a place of refuge for Jews on numerous occasions. The first wave of Jews landed on its shores after their expulsion from Spain. When Catholic rulers in France gave Jews the boot, Corsica once again was there for them and its residents willingly took them in. When Corsica was granted its short-lived independence, it invited thousands of Jews from Italy to become citizens. In the Second World War, when Corsica was incorporated into the Nazit puppet Vichy regime, the tradition continued and not a single there Jew from the island was handed over to the Nazis. Simeoni viewed Jewish history and the national struggle of his own movement as if they were part of the same fabric.

US neo-Nazis

Nationalism could be separatist and xenophobic or it could be a struggle for liberation, for freedom, which included foreigners who wanted to be part of the national makeup and ethos. But as we know, this isn’t always given to them. In Europe, the Jews wanted to be part of it, but they were rejected and separated. In Corsica though, the latter version of nationalism worked. Simeoni married a Jewish woman whose family was from Poland. His son is now the president of Corsica’s council. We, Simeoni told me, are part of the same Catholic Zionist family. That is how he defined himself. Corsica is not known, of all things, for its love for foreigners. So how is it that, of all things, the tide of anti-Semitism did not wash up on its shores? When he was younger, Simeoni told me, he lived in a neighborhood with religious Jews. There he learned and grew to love them, particularly because for him, these Jews personified the symbol of integration and success. It isn't that the Corsicans are hostile to foreigners, the locals explained to me. Rather they are hostile to foreigners who don;t integrate. And why, of all places, did the gathering take place in Pianello? It turns out that it was there that a local association asked to plant a tree as a symbol against racism and hatred of foreigners. The choice was in the casket of the chestnut tree from the window of Anne Frank. That was her only connection with the outside world. Simeoni delivered his words at the foot of the tree. Here is lesson for Israel and all other nation states: It was a mix of national liberation and humanism that deterred nationalism and xenophobia. I travelled to Corsica for a holiday but I had the privilege there of receiving a fascinating lesson about nationalism and the brothers of nations.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Turning a blind eye to extreme Right or Left anti-Semitism : http://ift.tt/2vmrFPv