Bibi gets his groove back
Netanyahu: Israel rule over Jerusalem not up for discussion
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem was not a matter up for discussion. The prime minister’s comments came after the U.S. State Department told Israeli envoy Michael Oren that Israel must halt a construction project in East Jerusalem.
Netanyahu told ministers at the weekly cabinet meeting that Jerusalem is the united capital of Israel and that all citizens are allowed to purchase property in any part of the city they choose.
“Imagine what would happen if someone were to suggest Jews could not live or purchase [property] in certain neighborhoods in London, New York, Paris or Rome,” he said.
“The international community would certainly raise protest. Likewise, we cannot accept such a ruling on East Jerusalem,” Netanyahu told ministers.
This is the policy of an open city, he said, and Israel would not accept a stance that counters that civil right.
“Israeli Arabs are not forbidden from buying houses in west Jerusalem and Jews must be granted the same right in the eastern part of the city,” he added.
The State Department summoned Oren over the weekend to advise him that the project developed by American millionaire Irving Moskowitz should not go ahead, according to both Israel Radio and Army Radio.
Moskowitz, an influential supporter of Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem, purchased the Shepherd Hotel in 1985 and plans to tear it down and build housing units in its place. The hotel is located near a government compound that includes several government ministries and the national police headquarters.
In response to the request, Oren told the State Department that Israeli construction in East Jerusalem was no different than in any other part of the country.
Jerusalem could not be considered along the same lines as settlements, he said, adding that Israel would not accede to this demand
PM flatly rejects US demand to halt J’lem housing project
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Jerusalem is the “unified capital of Israel and the capital of the Jewish people, and sovereignty over it is indisputable,” Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Sunday, responding to an American demand to put an end to a housing project to be built in east Jerusalem.
Vacant Shepherd Hotel in East…
Ted in short Bullshit. Civil rights? Not National rights?
There is no difference between Yehuda and Shomron and Jerusalem Except for the Temple Mount. I don’t see BB extolling any Prophetic vision for the restoration of the Temple. There is only one unassailable reason for contesting Jerusalem and it is the same for all of Yehuda and Shomron and that is religious Judaism.. BB gives a damn? What the hell is Jerusalem worth without all of Yehuda and Shomron and what is Israel worth without both Jerusalem and the surrounding lands. You can’t separate the Two. Wat’s so important to the BB’s about Jerusalem? They have already given up most of the Land of Israel surrounding the Temple mount to the Enemy. Let strategists expound, geopolitists and geologists and archeologists exigise. This is not our business. What is our concern is that this spot, with no possibility of change is “the place that is chosen.” No apparent “rationalism,” no “enlightened” philosophy can change this, nor move even one square meter of the mount.
Temple Mount: No other Temple is acceptable, no matter how beautiful, if it is not on this Mount. Nor is this Mount acceptable without the “Great and Holy Temple” standing on it. Both symbolizing the unification and synthesis of the material basis, the great foundation in the land that surrounds it, with the quality of Holiness. anyone who thinks the Temple a matter of religious ritual has not grasped the meaning of what is called “Israel in the world.” The Temple is not just another “Jeshurun Synagogue,” perhaps prettier, that can be located just as easily in New York, the Temple’s tie to the geopolitical and historical point called the Temple Mount symbolizes the uniqueness of our outlook on the world.
The Temple (literally, “The House’) is the House that is chosen upon the Mount that is for the people who are chosen. The central and sanctified heart of a nation cannot be a glorified synagogue as many religious people picture it, nor can it be a political “House” of Lords or Representatives as some secularists would have it. The territorial necessity involved with it is related to its basic role: expressing the world-view that makes our people unique, that gives us the possibility of a meaning for existence of man in general, in this infinite world. This shall not change,EVER!
All others for the time being he will accede to?? Of course they will accede to a halt in Jerusalem but just not yet. Don’t jump so quickly to every BBism that he might emote. He has given everything up already just the timing and the quid pro quo in justification has yet to be formally announced.
BB’s world view is little different than Obamas or Nicolas Sarkozys. He will in the end comply like the lapdog he is and always has been. He is controlled and subservient to the moneyed Oligarchs both in Israel and abroad and they can toss him faster than a Kassam rocket.
Comment by yamit82 — July 19, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
[...] told ministers at the weekly cabinet meeting that Jerusalem is the united capital of Israel a click for more var _wh = ((document.location.protocol==’https:’) ? “https://sec1.woopra.com” : [...]
Pingback by Bibi gets his groove back — July 19, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
[...] an influential suRead more at http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=15451 « 2001 a space odyssey >> News: Local: Story – The…. Moon landing, [...]
Pingback by Obama ups the ante on “settlements”…. Israpundit » Blog Archive …. | Total Info — July 19, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
America has left Israel little manoevering room vis a vis the 2 state solution. Netanyahu’s approach to solidifying Israel’s claim to all of Jerusalem just might derive from choosing a strategy to justify gain national rights through the back door of civil rights.
We will have to see whether Netanyahu’s resolve can this time withstand the withering American pressure.
What makes it feasible is that bound up in the Palestinian rejection of Netanyahu’s position that a united Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is not up for discussion, is the Palestinian rejection of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, all of which is bound up in the fundamental rejection of Israel’s right to exist.
No matter how much Pres. Obama thinks that pushing Israel to more concessions will satisfy Palestinian needs and interests so as to bring them completely on board with the American vision of the 2 state solution, he will find himself scrambling to explain why Israel’s concessions bring the Palestinians no closer to peace.
Pres. Obama even more then his predecessor, Pres. Bush is turning a blind eye to the fundamental Palestinian rejection of Israel and the culture of death and Jew/Israel hatred that the Palestinian leadership at all levels of Palestinian society have promoted and caused to become ingrained and inbred.
It is that reality, often expressed in Palestinian intransigence, increased levels of Jew hatred, more numerous, strident, and extreme demands and further expressed in terrorism against Israel that has prevented Israel from following through on promises former Pres. Bush wrung out of Israel.
In practically all those cases, America, be it before Pres. Bush or now Pres. Obama, has said little to nothing to blame the Palestinians for their treachery, deceit, immorality and wrongdoing.
Adding to those difficulties Pres. Obama faces in trying to force a 2 state peace solution on Israel and the Palestinians, with Israel paying most of the cost is the fact that there is a defacto terror state in Gaza run by Hamas, a terrorist organization that America has identified as such which is in a power struggle with the PA/Fatah, an undeclared Jew/Israel hating terrorist regime.
No matter what Abbas might possibly agree to as regards Israel will come to nought unless Hamas goes along. Abbas’ power and authority barely extend past his compound in Ramallah.
To conclude, if Netanyahu’s strategy is to get through the back door what America will not let him get through the front door, that is a good thing. If Netanyahu has no such strategy, but his flailing away has created such opportunity, hopefully he pushes forward and that opportunity will ultimately be realized though Netanyahu might not himself realize it until success is at hand.
Either way, Netanyahu’s stance can only be seen as a positive.
Comment by Bill Narvey — July 19, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
Yamit you are a purist. Sometimes its best to make the point that works best. Bibi staked our claim on Jerusalem. Never mind if it was based on Civil law and not international law. Bibi is asserting our sovereignty based on our possession rather than on our legal rights which could be challenged. There is time enough to make the legal claims.
He is saying, “its our because we possess it”. Works for me.
Comment by Ted Belman — July 19, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
Ted Belman: In the interests of full disclosure and complete transparency,
Comment by h peskin — July 19, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
[...] Moskowitz, an influential suRead more at http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=15451 [...]
Pingback by Atlas Shrugs: Yerushalaim Shel Zahav!…. Israpundit » Blog Archive …. | Total Info — July 19, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
Exactly. Obama is a real SOB.
Comment by Laura — July 19, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
Accepting your argument but questioning consistency. The same argument could be made for all of Yehuda and Shomron where IDF controls and all the empty spaces devoid of Arabs. The problem as I see it because the same argument was not made weakens the argument of the second. To Keep Jerusalem we must equally stake identical claims to most of the Territories that we now control and all of the territory the Arabs don’t.
When Begin acceded to Land for Peace concept he thought he was at the same time protecting Yehuda and Shomron but instead accomplished to different negative paradigms. Jewish settlement and including towns and villagers can be dismantled and Sharon strengthened the original precedent of Begin and Sharon in Sinai. Secondly by giving up all of Sinai including billions in civilian and military infrastructure oil and gas fields Towns and settlements including Taba insured on of two possibilities That we will be forced gradually to pre 67 borders and all that signifies or there can never be a Peace agreement with any of our other border neighbors unless they also receive 100% of land lost by them in 67. Syria and Palis could never due to Arab mentality agree to receive less than Sadat received. So if there can never be an agreement because such equivocalness is rooted in Arab Pride and the Street would never accept less why then concede an inch. Or it’s a given we will find ourselves eventually back in pre 67 lines and only a suitable price must be negotiated.
My point is that once you establish and agree to concept and allow for precedent as we have since 73 it’s a steady return to a status quo anti and all but the most obtuse or fanatical anti Israel elements here would agree to such a proposition,If it were proposed in that way but they do it insidiously so few realize what is happening till it over and done and then too late. That’s why it’s been a slow withdrawal process in order to condition and spin the benefits and and when no benefits can be spun successfully they fall back on the old reliable Pressure from America.
Comment by yamit82 — July 19, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
In support of my contention reached independently from this article below
Ketzaleh: Two Parties Must Unite and Grow to 15 Seats
by Hillel Fendel
(IsraelNN.com) MK Yaakov Katz (Ketzaleh) says new elections are closer than thought, and that the Knesset’s two national-religious parties must unite beforehand. Both parties are headed by freshman Knesset Members: The National Union, with four MKs, by Ketzaleh, and the 3-MK Jewish Home – the successor to the National Religious Party – is led by Rabbi Prof. Daniel Hershkovitz.
The Jewish Home is a member of the coalition, and Hershkovitz is Minister of Science. The National Union conducted coalition negotiations with the Likud, but was not invited into the government by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, most likely because of the National Union’s more hard-line stance on Land of Israel issues.
Katz met on Wednesday evening with National Union activists in the Knesset, and told them, “Like in the Israel Defense Forces, the first thing we have to do is to define the objective.”
The central objective as we approach the next Knesset elections, he said, “is to unite with the Jewish Home and grow into a party that has 15 Knesset Members and will be the determining factor in forming a government coalition.”
“I meet frequently with Minister Hershkovitz,” Katz said, “and with MKs Orlev and Orbach, and with Nissan Slomiansky [slated to enter the Knesset in the near future, in place of Herskovitz, if a law is passed ensuring that the latter can return to the Knesset if he leaves the Cabinet – ed.], and we discuss this matter.”
“What we have to do,” he said, “is to formulate an agreement wherein each party retains its own character, but seeks the support of the entire public together… If Netanyahu was able to grow from 12 seats to 27, then we can grow fro 7 to 15.”
The two parties attempted to unite before the previous elections, but the venture did not work. Four of the top six candidates chosen to head the united list were identified with the NRP side, only one incumbent National Union MK (Uri Ariel) was chosen to the top 10, and the National Union camp did not feel that the list would take a sufficiently strong stance on Land of Israel matters.
When Ariel resigned from the united list, the National Union quickly regrouped, choosing Katz as its leader, followed by then-MKs Ariel and Aryeh Eldad, and Jewish Front representative Dr. Michael Ben-Ari.
Comment by yamit82 — July 19, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
BB
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/static/pictures/Albums/1/6304.jpg
Comment by yamit82 — July 19, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
Narvey:
Since when is wishful thinking considered a positive thing? I don’t think as Ted commented that I am a purist. I see no reason to fight for leftover crumbs when I can have the whole loaf. My opinions of Israels situation and of BB in particular are not based on I believe political spin and unsupported hope that BB will suddenly become what he isn’t and never was. A true leader of a sovereign Jewish state with our interests first and foremost of regaining and keeping that sovereignty above all else except possibly existential security threats. In a way both go hand in hand. As only an independent sovereign will do what has to be done no matter what to defend the nation and her citizens no matter the cost. Israel tied to America is a nation under subjugation, a vassal state and it is now questionable whether BB or any other current contender for the leadership of Israel would assert independence of action even against the most potent existential threat. BB was given a mandate by we Israelis many thinking along the lines I described to do just that, assert our independence as a sovereign even to the point of a break with America and are willing to pay the price for that independence.
BB is trying to preserve what shouldn’t be preserved at least not what exists today. Won’t work, never has and he is stalling for time and at the same time weakening our position across the board in almost all areas.
BB is a leftist in all but declaration and here is where our problems lie. The defining trait of leftism is rationalism: castles in the air can be designed and therefore can be built. The Left’s attitude wasn’t about religion. Still in the early 1980s, there was little traffic on Saturdays and nearly no pork consumption in Israel. A well-known feature of the opening hours of the Yom Kippur War was empty streets—the society dominated by the Left still adhered to major Jewish rules. Secular Jews sense the absence of political goals among the religious—from a rejection of Zionism to a lukewarm attitude towards the Third Temple—and sense their plain backwardness. People who insist on dressing in centuries-old fashions and observing myriad superstitious rites are hardly a beacon for the nation. Secular Jews, accordingly, proceeded to design and build an ideal society where wolves lay with sheep and Jews dined with Arabs. One thing more pleasant than peace is designing a peaceful society.
If the Jews have no religious goal of governing the Land of Israel, it makes sense to divide jurisdiction with the Arabs. If the Jews evaluate their claim to the Land of Israel skeptically, then the Arab claim to the same territory should be entertained. It is only reasonable to split a thing you don’t want desperately with another contender. If you don’t want it desperately enough to kill the contender…
The leftists evaluated the situation: okay, we would love to have a large Jewish state, but the land is already settled. Okay, we would love to live specifically in this land, but the landmarks of the biblical saga are not of paramount importance to us. Okay, we would love to live in a state without Arabs, but they are already here. The leftist Jews draw superficially reasonable conclusions: split the contested land, abandon the hot places of antiquated religious importance, and accept Arabs in Israel. None of that works. Jews accept the idea of splitting the land, but many Arabs don’t; they want their Palestinian homeland (or Muslim land) back in its entirety. They will fight Israel no matter what concessions we make. Whatever concessions Israel offers them won’t be enough; Arabs will reciprocate forced Israeli goodwill with force, not goodwill. The more land Israel gives away, the more she emboldens the Arabs. The smaller is Israel’s land plot, the more effort Arabs will invest in that last push to free their land. The good-willing leftists ignore an odd fact: goodwill doesn’t lead to peace. Ask the suffering Laotian people.
Nor could the secular Jews give the Arabs all the holy places. After giving the Muslims Hebron and the Temple Mount, Israelis discovered what should have been clear all along: the list of holy places is flexible. Arabs defend every illegally constructed mosque (of which there are hundreds in Israel, including such huge ones as the one in Lod) as if it were Haram ash-Sharif. Every point of confrontation with Jews, however trivial, turns into a religious dispute. Secular, careless Jews give way; principled Arabs don’t.
Arabs understand the Jews want their loyalty and are ready to pay for it. Arabs keep raising the price tag for their loyalty. They demand that the Jews turn a blind eye to illegal construction, criminal syndicates, non-payment for water and electricity, and a black market economy. Through affirmative action, especially in the courts, Israeli Arabs evolved from pets into the masters of Jews.
The leftist Jews want a state without Arabs, but lacking religious justification or strong nationalism they are reluctant to make the Arabs suffer. The leftists hope that the Arabs will somehow leave Israel voluntarily. The leftists, however, shied away from Rehavam Ze’evi, who argued for the most voluntary transfer: paying the Arabs to leave. The Left would love for the Arabs to leave, but talking about transfer is racist, right-wing, and indecent. The Jews became blind—ethnic-blind. In their enlightened fantasies, leftist Jews imagine a state formed without violence done to the aborigines, a Jewish state which doesn’t displace the Arabs, a state where indigenous Arabs accept Jewish refugees as the dominant group.
Arabs constitute 34 percent of the Israeli population in the youngest age group. Israeli advocates ingeniously explain how a democratic ethnic-blind state can call itself Jewish, but the Arabs don’t buy such explanations. They demand the abrogation of the formal attributes of inequality: the Jewish state, the reference to the “Jewish soul” in the national anthem, and the Jewish star on the national flag. They demand ministerial portfolios, eventually to include a place in the security cabinet which discusses fighting their Arab brethren.
Lincoln remarked, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” ( BB has never learned this truism) Smart leftist Jews cannot fool all the Arabs all the time. The Jewish state is not ethnic-blind. The Jew-only General Staff is not the product of a democracy. The fairy tale of a Jewish state with herds of happy and submissive Arabs won’t work out. Meanwhile, the Jews believe their own lies about happy co-existence in a bi-national state, and they tolerate the Arabs.
The Arabs loved Greek culture and knew about democracy. When they wanted a Muslim state, however, they made Jews dhimmi rather than democratic partners. Rambam noted that what is triune cannot be one; when Jews are distinct and Arabs are distinct, there is no Israeli nation.
This historical context places BB squarely in the rational Leftist camp, and is intellectually incapable of fullfilling the mandate that the right of given him. That is my point.
Comment by yamit82 — July 20, 2009 @ 11:17 am
Yamit, you undermine your arguments by your weaving in your blinkered anti Netanyahu bias and your angst over the realpolitik of the day. You offer little in the way of explaining how Israel can return to yesteryear when even secular and leftist Israelis still had a Zionist vision shared with their more religious Israeli brethren.
Yamit, for all your arguments about the way Israel should be, you have failed to address a number of significant matters:
1. Israel is militarily strong in the region, but is relatively weak on the world stage.
2. If your vision of what Israel is to become a reality, what is Israel to do with its Israeli Arab population which by law have been granted equal rights with Israeli Jews and how is Israel to do that.
3. Israelis are ideologically fractured between the right and the left and the in between as regards what kind of peace they foresee as possible and feasible.
4. If Israel is to become the master of her own house and destiny, she first needs to clean her own house and then set national goals and aspirations that are shared by the large majority of Israelis. While Israelis still might differ on how to achieve those national goals and inspirations, they must at least be headed in the same general direction.
5. etc.
I do not presume to know how to deal with these and the myriad of related issues. I just know that talking about problems without offering solutions amounts to just complaining about and picking at a scab that keeps the wound from healing.
Comment by Bill Narvey — July 20, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
Without taking any position on all of this, I would offer this, from a view of foreigbn policy, which relates both how Israelis and Americans and American Jews feel about the currebnt state of things in Issrael and the Middle East:
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/07/17/jerusalem_post_poll
Comment by davidstill — July 20, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
Narvey I could have posted a myriad of mine and others who posted comments on how to achieve those goals but you and others may or may not have read them if if you did you rejected them in favor of the common group think prevalent even in the most loyal stalwarts posting here. That’s the problem your mind automatically rejects what it refuses to entertain.
I can’t predict results but I know what has to be done. It will eventually be done because of no choice but it is better for all of us sooner than later. Less pain lower price to be paid/ if any?
Check archives I have at least 50 comments on the same theme. I believe most are consistent but none embedded in granite. What ever works. Problem with you is you can’t divorce yourself from a mindset developed from birth and honed by your profession to always look for middle ground compromise which may or may not work in the legal business but it can be deadly in the nation building and keeping business realm.
Majorities are for idiots: Should you follow a majority to national suicide because they have enough votes? People should be told the truth and what their options are. This had never been done here or in any modern state that I know of. Every thing is controlled to illicit a group think and that’s what we got Group think equal to little or no think.
Then there is always the Jewish penicillin
You are tied into the concept that our only purpose in our being here in Israel is to replicate Canada, America and Europe?
High material standard of living reasonable health care and life expectancy democracy, etc. Western values as you have grown to know and love. Oh yes PEACE and Security, we must have that as well. Thats the cherry on the Sunday.
Bullshit Narvey none is true and none will ever be, not here! We can have reasonable living standards, reasonable health, a reasonable longevity, but Peace and security? Never. Jews who need that should all move to Canada. That’s the truth our leaders and elites refuse to tell the people.
Start with that truth and everything else becomes subtext and actionable. Like I don’t give a dam about what America or EU will do, If need be we will herd sheep and grow our own food till it all blows over. You in the west are the transcendental entities here today gone tomorrow we are permanent. ProoF? History!
Comment by yamit82 — July 20, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Yamit, I agree with your thought in general but the Zionist Right has struck me often as impulsive in character and lacking in an appreciation of political realism. Israel needs a national camp both with principled goals and the flexibility necessary to attain them. Without the former, the latter is useless. Defending the Land Of Israel will not be possible without a politically mature Right.
Comment by NormanF — July 20, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
Why no position davidstill? You always had a position before when defending the Black yo yo,Stepin Fetchit!
Ask any American where is Israel 1-10 might get it correctly. Most don’t know where N Dakota is either. Ask any average American any ten random facts about Israel and most will get ten out of ten wrong.
Therefore what is the efficacy in such polls one way or another? Most Americans love Australians, Brits, Canadians less for some reason and does anybody care? What about Thais? Bermudans The Finns? Really who gives a flying….? But you will say there is a correlation between public support and political support? Maybe but then how many Americans love the Saudis? with apparently no corresponding relationship to public disfavor to governments favor. So there apparently is even in America somethings above public perceptions of like and dislike within the scope of international relations.
Most of the time when it counted America was against Israel and have always been against the Jews!! On these if need be I can cite chapter and verse to back up my contentions.
But thank you davidstill for at least giving us a link to an article that must be painful for a true believer in our new Stepin Fetchit!
Comment by yamit82 — July 20, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Yamit, don’t pull a Peskin by running off at the mouth at me.
Yes you have in past stated what should be done, just like so many other writers who have addressed problems and issues plaguing Israel and diaspora Jewry have included in or concluded their remarks with a number of “must do’s ” or “should do’s”.
What is missing is advice on how to get Israelis and diaspora Jews from “must or should do” to done, given the realities that have placed so many hurdles in the way.
Perhaps you have at times gone beyond the “must or should do’s”, but to what effect? We still are talking about “must or should do’s” and we need to just as importantly focus attention on how to get those things done.
I am not understanding by the way as to why you persist in framing your concerns with Israel by singling out Netanyahu for your ire and criticism. I am neither pro or anti Netanyahi, but my sight is still good enough to know when someone is being biased. You are biased when it comes to Netanyahu.
You dwell on all Netanyahu’s faults and flaws without conceding anything positive (and there are some positives) or recognizing that whether it is Netanyahu, Olmert, Livni, Sharon or other Israeli leaders past or in waiting, all must make decisions and take actions within a milieu of varying hostility towards Israel by nations that even more significantly, hold sway over Israel to a greater or lesser extent.
I do think your views to the extent they incorporate your bias against Netanyahu, lack balance.
Though you and I agree on a fair number of issues, we appear to disagree on the context in which we frame the issues and what might be needed in order to effect change so Israel and diaspora Jewry can get to where we think they should be going.
Anyway Yamit, as I said try not to pull a Peskin on me. That only further undermines the views you are trying to express.
Comment by Bill Narvey — July 20, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
OK Narvey lets reverse the your accusation of me being biased and non objective towards BB. State what you consider to be BB positives since taking office> I have a whole list I haven’t even mentioned of negatives. I think you know me well enouigh by now that I don’t give opinions when it comes to our leaders lightly and never those I can’t back up. I try not to the extent possible live on wishful thinking especially when my life might be hanging in the balance so you have a lot more flexibility than I do with playing intellectual checkers. I stopped listening to anything BB says years ago and only watch his doings and deeds. So far his actions give him a strong D minus and if nothing changes to reverse his current direction or lack thereof he is out of there and here in 6-8 months. Especially if Lieberman gets indicted.
Balance why should there be balance? This isn’t a beauty contest or a school quiz or even a legal brief. He was elected to do certain things and has so far dropped the ball big time. I am supposed to search for silver linings, you cut the crap we are speaking of serious things here and many lives might hang in that balance of yours. Even the future of the State of Israel. You bet I and many other Israelis are demanding. He wanted the Job pulled every dirty lieing trick to get it so as they say back home shit or get off the pot.
Deep Narvey real deep. What do you think, I don’t know it’s a tough job and requires difficult decisions? Hostility? We always had and have hostility nothing new there but we haven’t done too badly till now even with all that Hostility of yours, and I see no reason to believe we won’t continue at a greater or lesser pace.
Any nation that you claim has sway over us is only because we allow them too and this is largly due to our local politics and who owns our politicians. It serves their interests to blame bad decisions and anti Israeli policies by being able to blame pressure from the outside.
You tell me what anyone can do to really harm us if we tell them to just fuck off and get off our case. What? I will say again they are afraid that those some external forces will back with all their economic resources BB’s opposition and work overtly and covertly to depose them. They probably have a file on BB as with Olmert etc and could leak details that would end their political careers if not worse. That’s the power Narvey. Boycotts we can survive they will blow over after a time. for a lousy 2 billion a year nobody should hold sway over Israel. Even loan Guarantees mean just lower interest on Government Loans and with our current AA rating there isn’t much difference it’s more psychological than monetary.
No problem diapora Jewry is with us only a majority it seems of American and Canadian Jews it seems aren’t with us and then I am not sure we shoulf consider a large swath of that group as Jews anyway, They don’t!
Have no fear though we have our X factor that just might be our secret weapon and the ans to most of our current external swayers. BHO is that X factor. He might just make BB even against his will a credible leader? who knows stranger things have happened.
Comment by yamit82 — July 21, 2009 @ 12:22 am
Well it seems even I have indulged in wishful thinking against my better Judgment:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1101796.html
Residents of Destroyed Homes: ‘We Will Rebuild”
by Baruch Gordon
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132497
If BB does this he is finished. If any of the Jewish Kids are killed Half the IDF could rebel. It finished in more than one way Sharon and it finished Olmert. He was on a downhill slide after Amona. Half the Likud will abandon him as well. Even if he manipuates his Coalition with Kadima it will be short lived so he is either arrogantly confident he will not pay the ultimate political price or he is still the stupid BB who never correctly gaged his strength and always came up on the opposite side of issues his constituents and supporters expected from him.
Even Lieberman will be then faced with a political challenge to stay in the coalition as his core supporters will be watching to see how he reacts. UZI Landau could force A party split if he doesn’t bolt.
Against Ethnic Cleansing
Chief Rabbi: Obama ‘Settlement’ Stance Opposes Torah
Reported: 08:55 AM - Jul/21/09
(IsraelNN.com) Sephardi Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar called on American Jews this week to explain to the Obama administration the religious obligation of every Jew to live in every part of the Land of Israel, according to the Jerusalem Post. The newspaper obtained a letter addressed to American rabbinical organizations and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, in which Amar wrote that “the Torah commands the Jewish people to live in Israel. And we hear that the US is putting pressure on the Israeli government to prevent Jews from living or building their homes in large parts of the Land of Israel.”
Amar wrote that he was addressing the issue solely from a religious point of view, while noting the lack of restrictions based on ethnic background in other parts of the world. The idea to write the letter to American Jews was inspired by American-born Rabbi Sholom Gold, who spoke on Shabbat before Amar and other rabbis of how it was unjust to turn areas of the Land of Israel Judenrein - a Nazi term for “cleansed of Jews”. It was Rabbi Amar’s first public declaration on Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.
Why do I hate BB, Barak:
These are not deserving of our cowardly political leaders:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jexZpnZIC_U&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_88PmHYX_8&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BIjsH_rNEo&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0Of0LIIEw0&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hi87qQmB5Q&feature=related Ed D check this out
(IsraelNN.com) On Monday, the High Court ruled in favor of the far- left organizations Peace Now and Yesh Din and ordered that 11 homes in the Samaria town of Eli be torn down. One of the homes in question belongs to IDF Major Roi Klein, who was killed in the Second Lebanon War when he jumped on a live hand grenade thrown by Hizbullah forces, in order to save his soldiers.
Maj. Klein´s last words, his soldiers later said, were “Shema Yisrael.”
The Klein family home is located in the Hayovel neighborhood of Eli. The neighborhood received government support and services over the course of more than a decade, but never received official authorization.
Peace Now claims that some houses were built on Arab-owned land. According to residents of Eli, a part of one building does extend onto Arab land, but the other homes in the neighborhood, including the Klein family residence, were built entirely on state land.
Klein´s final act of bravery led the state to posthumously award him the Medal of Valor, the IDF´s highest honor. Klein was the first to be awarded the medal in more than 30 years.
Klein´s widow, Sarah, declined to respond to the High Court decision that could leave her and her two young children with no home. Neighbors described the news as “a harsh blow,” particularly in light of the fact that it came almost exactly three years after Roey´s death, and shortly before a scheduled IDF memorial ceremony in his honor.
´Will Your Hand not Tremble?´
Following the ruling, the Land of Israel Legal Forum sent an emotional appeal to Defense Minister Ehud Barak, calling on him to honor Major Klein by authorizing his family´s home and making it legal. “Will your hand, as that responsible for destroying the home of this hero of Israel, not tremble as you sign the demolition order?” asked Forum chairman Nachi Eyal.
The story in video clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrAtif91gI8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAuSGKwpngk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaL4Vmi6rqc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkosN8K9hfE&feature=related
When he gave his life, Klein became a national symbol of bravery and sacrifice, Eyal noted. If Barak allows the Klein family home to be destroyed, “the message sent will be disastrous, for both civilians and soldiers,” he warned.
“If there remains any significance to ´our duty to the fallen´ – now is the time to prove it,” he concluded. (© A7 Syndications 07/15/09)
Comment by yamit82 — July 21, 2009 @ 11:24 am
Yamit you know as an outsider I probably shouldn’t comment on what happens in Israel. Having said that I agree with the statement and believe it’s also their rights to live in all of Israel.
By removing these outpost sends the wrong message to everyone and the result is giving up some rightful territory. Kinda like the dike in Holland. A small hole begins to grow larger and larger resulting in disater.
These communities need to expand if anything to the extent the intruders will eventually leave.
Bottom line is the Israeli government has to stop listening and taking orders others.
But again what do I know.
Comment by rongrand — July 21, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
Yamit, Prof. Paul Eidelberg has written extensively on the nature and shortcomings of the Israeli political system. One of the consequences of their flawed system noted by Prof. Eidelberg in his article An American Political Scientist in Israel (full text follows my comment) is that:
Prof. Eidelberg, writing on the dysfunction and flaws in Israel political system also has noted a number of times that those flaws include allowing for a myriad of single issue or narrow issues parties which usually results in coalition governments that are inherently unstable because the coalition members will only remain with the government so long as the PM satisfies the coalition member’s positions. The PM is thus constantly juggling to keep all the small 2 bit MK party members of the PM’s caucus, happy.
This volatile and unstable political milieu does not lend itself to good governance. Added to the internal pressures that twist and turn the Israeli PM to hold his government together are the pressures from outside from both so called friendly allies and from enemies.
Stack up all your negatives against Netanyahu that you want Yamit. I am aware of at least a number and I share you concerns, but what I see is a PM who has been left little manoevering room, not just by Pres. Obama, but by his predecessors who during their term as PM, under great pressure from former American Presidents made various agreements with the Arabs/Palestinians, all of which led to concessions being given.
What I see with PM Netanyahu’s position on settlements and Jerusalem and his conditional agreement to work towards a peace that includes the creation of an independent Palestinian state, he is doing not too bad a job of trying to assert at least a few of Israel’s rightful claims.
Time will tell whether Netanyahu feels forced to retreat from his tough positions in the face of new or renewed pressures - read as threats - from Pres. Obama.
Yamit you continue to write that Israel should cut its dependency ties with America. This time you phrase it:
Your absolutist black and white position which stems from your ’screw America and everyone else - Israel will do what Israel needs and wants to do’ and thats just the way it will be, is unrealistic.
Israel would be wise to reduce its dependency on America by entering into new relationships with other nations or find a way to simply be more independent as regards certain political and economic aspects.
Reducing dependency on America and other friendly/ally nations to some extent is feasible and would be beneficial. Less dependency on America for example would likely mean less vulnerability to American pressure.
Also with less dependency, it means that Israel herself would have taken steps to make up for that lessened dependency, either in terms of becoming more self reliant or has shifted some of its dependency on America to other nations. Unless all the other nations that Israel were to shift some of her dependencies joined with America to pressure Israel, American pressure would be that much less effective.
Finally, Yamit, since you think Netanyahu is not the leader Israel needs, who is?
What are their chances of winning a majority to lead Israel to with guts and glory lead Israel to the kind of future you envision?
Prof. Eidelberg’s article follows:
An American Political Scientist in Israel* Prof. Paul Eidelberg
My first trip to Israel was in June 1973. I was visiting a friend, a philosopher, to whom I had sent the first draft of my book A Discourse on Statesmanship. Both of us were dismayed by Israel’s institutional and ideological flaws. We decided to establish an Institute for Statesmanship and Torah Philosophy.
I was then finishing A Discourse on Statesmanship, the first philosophical analysis of The Federalist Papers, the greatest work on statesmanship since Aristotle’s Politics. Meanwhile, my friend was learning with the Rabbi Dr. Chaim Zimmerman, a world renowned Talmudist and Torah philosopher, who I visited weekly after making aliya in 1976, and whose teachings enabled me to interface political science and Torah.
To appreciate the statesmanship of the Founding Fathers, my Discourse contrasted the very different statesmanship of Woodrow Wilson, an accomplished political scientist. In Wilson’s writings I discovered a political science that rejected the immutable truths or Natural Rights doctrine of the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitutional system of checks and balances. Influenced by historical relativism as well as by Darwinism, Wilson propagated today’s doctrine of an evolutionary Constitution, where the President would personify the will and changing wants of the people. Wilson’s politics united Progressivism and Statism.
Whereas The Federalist embodied a “Politics of Magnanimity,” which transcends class, Wilson initiated a “Politics of Compassion” which fosters resentment of the poor against the rich. Hence Wilson may be deemed the most subversive president in American history—until the ascendancy of Barack Obama, a disciple of anti-American malcontents animated by Marxist socialism and Statism.
Socialism-cum-Statism, with the veneer of secular Zionism, was the ideology of Israel’s founding fathers. This ersatz ideology was as foreign to a commonwealth based on Torah Judaism as it would be to an American commonwealth based on the American Declaration of Independence—a document rooted in Jewish ideas.
Unlike America, however, Israel lacked a constitution. Israel’s immigrant population had little understanding of constitutional democracy. They believed that periodic, multi-party elections are sufficient to make Israel a democracy. They did not know that a few simple electoral rules can yield democratic Statism. Rule One: avoid constituency elections by making the entire country a single electoral district. Rule Two: require parties to wins Knesset seats on the basis of Proportional Representation. Rule Three: require citizens to vote for fixed party slates, rather than for individual candidates (who would be personally accountable to the voters). Rule Four: allow parties to use a staged method of electing a party’s Central Committee. Bolsheviks called this “democratic centralism.” Lo and behold, David Ben-Gurion was a self-professed Bolshevik, hence a Statist.
In Israel, Statism is obscured by Proportional Representation with a low electoral threshold, which spawns a profusion of parties. This necessitates multiparty cabinet government, but few discern that this yields prime ministerial government—Statism in disguise.
Proportional Representation fosters party men, not statesmen. And since the founders were practical atheists, they lacked the statesmanship required to unite immigrants from 100 different countries and endow them with Jewish vision.
In contrast, America’s Founding Fathers consisted of desists and theists learned in classical and modern political philosophy. Madison and Hamilton knew how to design political institutions. This can’t be said Israel’s founders. The average duration of an Israeli government is less than two years. The consequences are painfully obvious.
This may explain why, in 1975, when I first met Israel’s former Chief of General Staff Chaim Laskov in Los Angeles, he had a copy of my Discourse on Statesmanship. Israel lacked two of the basic ingredients of sound government: (1) a set of immutable ethical principles, and (2) a framework of institutions that facilitates rational implementation these principles under changing circumstances.
The Torah reveals these basic ingredients at a supernal level: first, the Ten Commandments, second, a body of laws and institutions to elaborate and safeguard those Commandments and adjudicate violations thereof.
Israel’s ruling elites do not take the Torah seriously, and of those that do, few try to derive from the Torah principles of government that can render Israel’s political institutions more Jewish as well as more efficient. Hence, I undertook the task of showing how Israel can be made more Jewish by means of democratic principles as well as more democratic by means of Jewish principles. This is the purpose of my book Jewish Statesmanship.
Consider the American Declaration of Independence. We see in the Preamble a statement about the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” from which we derive our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. These rights are immutable; they transcend history; they are higher than the laws of the State. We also see in the Declaration violations of those rights by the British government.
To secure man’s God-given rights and prevent their violation by the power of the State, the Founding Fathers established a Federal system government with limited powers and institutional checks and balances. Those elected to make the laws of the country would be accountable not to party machines, but to the voters in constituency elections. The Founders had studied the greatest political philosophers. They designed a government that made the United States the most powerful yet most benevolent nation on earth. University presidents in the eighteenth century regarded the American Constitution as based on the Ten Commandments. Notwithstanding separation of religion and state, the Constitution was the manifestation of a monotheistic culture rooted in the Bible of Israel.
Now, by interfacing the Torah and America’s basic principles of government, one can elevate those principles and adapt them to Israel. Accordingly, in Jewish Statesmanship, I drafted a Constitution for Israel based on Jewish and democratic principles. The Constitution derives the two basic principles of democracy, freedom and equality, from the Torah’s conception of man’s creation in the image of God. This provides these principles with ethical constraints and yields what I call “Normative Democracy.” The Constitution also makes legislators individually accountable to the voters. The laws will then be more Jewish because a substantial majority of Israel’s Jewish population identifies with the Jewish heritage. But now a warning about a malignant form of democracy.
A basic purpose of the Torah is to eliminate idolatry. The idolatry of our time is “Normless Democracy,” where freedom means living as you like, and where equality leads to moral equivalence.
Moral equivalence underlies the willingness of Israeli politicians to negotiate with Arab despots—with evil men committed to Israel’s annihilation. By failing to act as a Normative Democracy, Israel’s government induces the Normless Democracies of the world to expect Israel to make territorial concessions to her anti-democratic enemies.
That Israel’s ruling elites have succumbed to moral equivalence by negotiating with genocidal despots suggests they suffer from a mental disorder. I discuss this disorder in my book Demophrenia: Israel and the Malaise of Democracy. Thus, whereas Jewish Statesmanship provides a constructive critique of Israel’s flawed institutions, Demophrenia offers a constructive critique of Israel’s flawed mentality.
Also necessary is restoration of Jewish national pride. Hence I wrote Jerusalem versus Athens, Judaic Man, and A Jewish Philosophy of History. More learned men should have written such books, as I proposed to others in 1980; however, when no response was forthcoming, I was urged to undertake the task by Rav Chaim Zimmerman of blessed memory. Rav Chaim deplored the low level of Israeli politics and discerned the end of Zionism. What is to take the place of Zionism is a challenge to which I am not equal but which I could not ignore.
I have often said that friendly critics of Israeli government focus too much on policy flaws rather than on regime flaws. Generally speaking, policy flaws spring from regime flaws. Thus we see that regardless of which party heads the government, it pursues the same failed policy of “territory for peace.”
Israel’s best political analysts rarely say anything about Israel’s inherently flawed system of government. None call for “regime change.” This requires, among other things, constitutional reforms that shift power from parties to the people and that transforms Israel into a Normative Jewish Democracy.
Of course, regime change does not come easy. Hence I am reminded of the Alter of Kelm, who said: “Ask not if a thing is possible; ask only if it is necessary.” And John Stuart Mill who said: “A people may be unprepared for good institutions, but to kindle a desire for them is a necessary part of the preparation.” This has guided my work in Israel,
Comment by Bill Narvey — July 21, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
My post when I made a slight edit change noted my post was spam and it disappeared. Is it still there or lost in the cyberwilderness?
Comment by Bill Narvey — July 21, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
You know more than most and even more than most who comment here on Israpundit.
All actions have consequences, sometimes even good consequences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwiRbvzR9EQ&NR=1
Comment by yamit82 — July 21, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
Yamit:
And so are they all.
I challenge anyone to name one Israeli politician with a real possibility of attaining power who will renounce the claim to the U.S. purse strings. Until the American dependency pipeline is severed there is no chance that Israel will be truly sovereign or independant.
Comment by h peskin — July 21, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Bullshit, prove it or stick it!
Comment by yamit82 — July 21, 2009 @ 7:37 pm