Netanyahu’s grand coalition
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST
The “international community” is eagerly anticipating the incoming Obama administration’s policy toward Israel. It is widely assumed that as soon as he comes into office, US President-elect Barack Obama will move quickly to place massive pressure on the next Israeli government to withdraw from Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in the interests of advancing a “peace process” with the Palestinians and the Syrians.
Giving voice to these expectations this week was this year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Martti Ahtisaari. The former Finnish prime minister used his prize ceremony to call on Obama to make contending with the Palestinian conflict with Israel his chief focus during his first year in office. This is the same Ahtisaari who recently demanded that the West recognize Hamas as a legitimate political movement.
People who have been in close contact with Obama’s foreign policy transition team have privately acknowledged that the widespread belief that Obama will move swiftly to put the screws on Israel is fully justified. According to one source who has spent a great deal of time with the transition team since last month’s US elections, Obama’s people are “scope-locked” on Israel.
The source reports that Gen. Jim Jones, Obama’s designated national security adviser, is Israel’s most outspoken critic. The source, who held a two and a half hour meeting with Jones, told his associates that Jones is keen to deploy NATO forces, perhaps including US troops, to Judea and Samaria.
Jones’s plan, which is vociferously opposed by the IDF, would make it impossible for the IDF to carry out counterterror operations in the areas. As a practical matter, the lives of hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens who live in the areas would be imperiled. Just as Hizbullah has used UNIFIL forces in south Lebanon as a shield from the IDF behind which it has rearmed and reasserted control over the border zone, so too a NATO force would facilitate an empowerment of Hamas and Fatah, which would unify, arm and organize free from the threat of IDF counterterror operations.
Jones’s plan is not new. In a 2002 interview, Samantha Power - who has been one of Obama’s closest foreign affairs advisers for years and now serves as a member of his transition team for the State Department - called for US forces to be deployed to Judea and Samaria as “a mammoth protection force” to protect the Palestinians from Israel, which she claimed was guilty of “major human rights abuses.”
Obama’s team, like its supporters in the international foreign policy establishment, is dismayed by the Israeli opinion polls that show that Likud, led by Binyamin Netanyahu, is favored to win February 10’s general elections by a wide margin.
In anticipation of Likud’s expected electoral victory, they have been piling on against Netanyahu and the party. This was most recently evident at last week’s Middle East policy conclave in Washington organized by the pro-Obama and post-Zionist Saban Middle East Forum at the Brookings Institute. There, both secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton’s surrogate, former president Bill Clinton, and current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice castigated Netanyahu’s assertion that peace must be built from the bottom up through the liberalization of Palestinian society, rather than from the top down by giving land to terrorists.
Netanyahu foresees Palestinian liberalization coming through economic development in an “economic peace process.”
Both the former US president and Rice attacked his plan, claiming that it is antithetical to the sacrosanct “two-state solution.”
As far as they and their many colleagues are concerned, the only thing that remains to be discussed is when Israel will vacate Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. The fact that there is no significant Palestinian constituency willing to peacefully coexist with Israel is irrelevant.
In light of the incoming Obama administration’s palpable hostility toward Israel, and particularly toward Israel’s political realists, the results of the Likud primary this past Monday were especially significant. In selecting the party’s slate of candidates for Knesset, Likud members favored sober-minded politicians who use their common sense to guide them over those with records of support for the fraudulent “peace processes” so favored by the local media, Kadima, Labor and the international jet set.
Likud politicians who warned of the dangers of then-prime minister Ariel Sharon’s decision to withdraw from Gaza and expel some 10,000 Israelis from their homes in Gaza and northern Samaria were elected to the top of the Knesset slate. Those who supported Sharon’s withdrawal and expulsion plan - which is now widely recognized to have been Israel’s most disastrous strategic move in recent history - were either rejected out of hand, or demoted.
The men and women selected by Likud’s voters will provide Netanyahu with the political strength to stand up to pressure from the Obama White House. They will support him when he is forced to reject US demands that Israel give away vital territory to Fatah and Hamas militias and to Syria’s Iranian-sponsored regime. They will support him when he is compelled to refuse US demands to deploy NATO forces to Judea and Samaria. They will back him when he says that Fatah is not a peace partner for Israel but Hamas’s partner for war against Israel.
That the general public shares the sensibilities exhibited by Likud primary voters is made clear by the fact that Likud’s standing in the polls has not significantly diminished since the primary. If, as the media warned, the public would reject a list comprised of sober-minded realists, one would have expected that support to drop. Instead, it remains steady even as Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni castigates Likudniks as naysayers and opponents of peace and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert scandalously invites the nations of the world to turn against Israel if Likud wins the elections.
One might have intuited that the striking contrast between the sober-minded Likud party and the delusional and defeatist Kadima and Labor parties that was brought so prominently to the fore by the Likud primary would have been the central message that Netanyahu chose to convey in the days that have followed Monday’s vote. But sadly, one would be wrong to think that.
Disturbingly, rather than drawing distinctions between his party and its rivals, Netanyahu has spent the days since the primary drawing distinctions between himself and a minor player in his own party. Both ahead of the primary and in the days since, Netanyahu has devoted the majority of his time to attacking his sharpest critic within the party - Moshe Feiglin, who heads the far-right Jewish Leadership Forum in Likud and won the not-particularly-senior 20th position on Likud’s Knesset slate. On Thursday, Netanyahu succeeded in pushing Feiglin down to the 36th spot.
Feiglin has more in common with the Left he abhors than with his party members. Like the Left, Feiglin bases his strategic and economic notions on a complete denial of reality. Whereas the Left ignores the Arabs, Feiglin ignores the West. Feiglin’s religious adherence to his views has made him few friends in Likud or elsewhere in Israeli politics. The threat he constitutes to Netanyahu is negligible.
Given Feiglin’s inherent weakness, Netanyahu’s post-primary focus on him is shocking. Netanyahu has argued that Feiglin will lose votes for Likud. But assuming that is true, the last thing Netanyahu should be doing is placing a spotlight on Feiglin. Rather, Netanyahu should be emphasizing his strongest suit: the clear distinction between Likud on the one hand and Kadima and Labor on the other hand.
In focusing the public’s attention on Feiglin, Netanyahu appears to be reacting to foreign pressures rather than domestic ones. One of Netanyahu’s most difficult challenges during his tenure as prime minister from 1996 to 1999 was handling his relations with the hostile Clinton administration. From the moment Netanyahu was elected until the moment he left office, the Clinton administration’s Israel policy was devoted entirely to bringing down his government. In close collusion with Netanyahu’s political opponents and the local media, for three years Clinton worked steadily to overthrow him. Clinton’s assault culminated in the 1999 elections when he sent his own campaign managers to Israel to lead the Labor Party’s campaign against Netanyahu and Likud.
No doubt, it is in the hopes of building better relations with the incoming Obama administration that Netanyahu now seeks to distance himself from Feiglin and advocates forming a broad governing coalition with his political foes in Kadima and Labor. Apparently, in his view only such a broad coalition will insulate him from a US presidential assault. In the interests of forming such a coalition, while highlighting his disputes with Feiglin, Netanyahu has sought to obfuscate his ideological differences with Kadima and Labor. his mode of operation will bring him results exactly opposed to the ones he seeks. It is true that to withstand pressures and even an all-out assault by the Obama administration Netanyahu will need a broad coalition. But that coalition cannot be based on a simple will to power, as Olmert’s coalition and previous leftist coalitions have been. To survive a hostile White House, Netanyahu will require a broad coalition founded on support for his ideas and his party’s policies, not a broad coalition populated by political and ideological opponents dedicated to undermining his ideas and policies.
Rather than obfuscate the differences between Likud and Kadima/Labor, Netanyahu must highlight them. He must convince the Israeli electorate to vote for Likud on the basis of these distinctions. Likud must be perceived as the party of commonsense ideas and clear-minded policies that inspire, attract and convince the Israeli public to support it. And Netanyahu and Likud have those ideas and policies.
On a strategic level, Netanyahu and Likud have made clear that they stand for three main principles.
-
First, they are committed to establishing defensible borders for Israel by securing Israeli sovereignty over all of greater Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, the Samarian Hills and the Golan Heights.
Second, they recognize that the Palestinian society that elected a terror group to lead it is a society that is uninterested in peace with Israel. Consequently, any future negotiations must be preceded by a full reorganization and reform of Palestinian society.
Third, they reject the Kadima/Labor fantasy that foreign militaries and international forces can be expected to protect Israel in place of the IDF.
If Netanyahu runs on these policies, he will not merely win the elections. He will win a clear mandate to govern. And only if Netanyahu runs on these policies will he have a chance of blunting the pressure that will certainly be brought to bear by the Obama administration. For although it is clear that like Clinton, Obama will have no problem opposing the will of an Israeli government, he will be hard pressed to oppose the will of the Israeli people.
caroline@carolineglick.com
Israel needs a far right nationalist government who will withstand enormous international hostility and pressure and stand up to Obama.
Comment by Laura — December 12, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
Netanyahu would do well to read Glick’s columns and take her advice.
Glick reminds me how disgusted I was with Pres. Clinton’s hostile policies towards Israel. Now Glick notes Clinton’s assault (on Netanyahu and on the best interests of Israel) culminated in the 1999 elections when he sent his own campaign managers to Israel to lead the Labor Party’s campaign against Netanyahu and Likud.
Bill and Hillary Clinton disgusted me when Bill was the Pres. for their unmitigated arrogance, dishonesty, unscrupulousness and moral bankruptcy.
Obama has at least honestly signalled Israel that he is morally bankrupt for his idea of being pro-Israel is for Israel to do what Obama wants and he has already found his attack dog in Jones, backed by Powers, Malley and Kurtzer who are set to do whatever they can to force Israel to capitulate.
I can understand Netanyahu trying to calm the nerves of the world, but by the same token, he does need a strong winning mandate and this time he needs to be a tough as nails leader who has steeled Israelis to be a tough as nails nation that stands behind him 100%.
Comment by Bill Narvey — December 12, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
Caroline is between a rock and a hard place here. On the one hand, she is a long-time loyal Bibi-ite. On the other hand, Feiglin’s political ideology is probably closer to her own and Bibi is already backpedaling on matters of strategic import.
Caroline has a keen intellect and the most finely-tuned pair of bat ears on the scene. It will be interesting following her columns over the coming months.
Comment by Charles Martel — December 12, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
Ms. Glick exhibits signs of,”battered wife sybdrome” when it comes to her near worship of BiBi. Netanyahu is a self-serving egomaniac that will bend to whatever his puppet masters(U.S. gov. and EU) command.
Comment by tov — December 12, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
To put the credibility of this being into perspective - Yasser Arafat also got the Nobel Peace Prize. That’s the measuring rod.
Lest we forget.
Comment by keelie — December 12, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
email rec’d
another
another
and another
Comment by Ted Belman — December 12, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Negotiating with the Pseudostinians is an exercise in futility — and dangerous.
Comment by alwaysonwatch — December 12, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
Caroline Glick was right to sound the alarm that Obama’s crew is “scope-locked” on Israel. With some of the most Israel-hating folks like Kurtzer and Jones. Whatever the conservative voters in Israel do, they cannot afford to split their votes between so many different political parties. Or else there could be a real danger that Kadima could actually win. And win with less than majority support. Yisrael Beitenu, Likud, NU/NRP,ect. Somehow they’ve got to try and unify and rally behind one main party.
Comment by Amerisrael — December 12, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
Judging by her articles, Glick may be better suited than BB for the job - At least intellectually, and I don’t think she would back down from Washington or the international community either. She also would make a great adviser - BB would do well to take her advice on this.
Comment by RandyTexas — December 12, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
The more I see and hear BB, the more I am convinced that except for nuance and style he is and will be no better than Olmert or Sharon. He is not the leader we need and he may turn out to be the worst of the previous lot, which includes his previous 3 year term. I can see a later scenario of Kadima merging with the likud to create a mammoth centrist party but for us on the Israeli right this is essentially the left ruling by policy instead of by party. Once BB accepted Oslo to which he has never renounced as well as the road map to which he has never disassociated from the left with BB leading are the real winners.
With BB at the helm of State it is doubtful he would attack Iran. Israel will be as doomed as any Polish ghetto. Perhaps Iran won’t nuke us, though nuke it may. What was the American reaction to Holocaust? Massive economic aid to Germany. Western countries won’t even stop buying Iran’s oil after it nukes the Jews out of existence. America and her anti-Israel allies will at the same time attempt to denuke Israel as a possible trade off for Iran agreeing not to go Nuke. This has been an Arab wet dream since the late 60s.
Jews can counter even such a scenario by enacting a law which provides for immediate annihilation of everything Muslim with Israel’s( 200-400 hundred nuclear bombs?) in response to unconventional attack from any source. That’s unrealistic. After a nuclear mushroom rises over Tel Aviv,The Israeli government would scratch its collective head, unable to attribute the terrorist attack to any particular country. Even if the state sponsor is known, the Jews who hesitate now to dismantle terrorists’ houses are unlikely to employ nukes. Israel’s mad policy of submitting to the insignificant Palestinian enemy shattered her nuclear credibility.
There is not a chance that the Livni-Barak’s government will or would strike Iran. Barak was the lone voice against Israeli strike on Syria. He is a corrupt politician and shady businessman rather than The national hero commando he once had been. Livni, indecisive as always, cannot push the strike against Barak’s objections. Herself, she won’t dare go against the American order to submit to annihilation. The Israeli cowards and traitors fears are not rational: Iran is incredibly weaker than was Egypt in 1967 and 1973. Militarily, attacking Iran is a slam dunk affair for Israel. Rather,our corrupt traitorous cowards look to Americans and Europeans for help and support But their opinions are well known, for decades if not centuries: they closed their borders to Jewish refugees who fled the Holocaust, refused ransoming Jews from Germans for merely some trucks, and the death camp was the only place in Auschwitz area not bombed by the Allied forces.
So the strategy of the Americans and their Arab and European allies seems to be very clear and we need a leader who has the personal character, guts and belief in our own abilities to weather the coming pressure. Dancing with wolves may not be the proper defense of our vital interests.
If Iran is allowed to succeed in weaponizing nukes, it will start an all out nuke arms race throughout the Middle East. Egypt and Saudi Arabia cannot let Iran dominate the Middle East. It will be easy for them to obtain nukes: Saudi Arabia probably already stores some Pakistani warheads, and peace treaty protects Egypt from Israeli preemption. So far, Mubarak prefers American aid to domestic nuclear program, but an Islamic government would definitely choose the opposite scenario, especially that after Egypt goes nuclear, America would likely increase the aid to control that country. After those two countries join the nuclear club, Syria cannot refrain. Iraq has to counterbalance nuclear Iran. Jordan needs protection against nuclear Syria. Oman cannot stand nuclear Egypt. Libya, Morocco, and Algiers ran advanced nuclear programs. In a few years, the entire Middle East will be armed with nuclear weapons, and some of them will certainly find their way to terrorists.
Israel has a choice to either create facts on the ground before the worst case scenarios become a reality or:
Keep in mind that: It will take two centuries for the radiation in Holy Land to come down to normal.
Comment by yamit82 — December 13, 2008 @ 9:02 am
Laura, Narvey, Tov, Keelie, Ted: everybody else
Kill the messenger:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgp4O_nxTq8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpm9ceJa4V8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBnBakXf5cc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvPJfre6hvE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4jJIp6y-ug&feature=related
Comment by yamit82 — December 13, 2008 @ 10:22 am
Caroline has had a persistent itch problem for many years. Obviously preparation H has proven to be ineffective. My fear is that the problem is contagious, in that Naomi Ragen is beginning to manifest the very same symptoms.
Yamit, one more M Kahane video from you, and I will invoke a virus on your hard drive. If it is still hard.
Comment by h peskin — December 14, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
All these years and I was never quite sure what the “H” stood for. Thanks, Hyman!
Comment by Shy Guy — December 14, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Your use of preparation H in your cynical comment of Ragen and Glick only reinforces my opinion of you that you are anally fixated. What are you a sodomite? I understand they made and marketed a special formula just for Canadians like you.
The Canadian formulation of Preparation H includes a yeast extract called BioDyne which has been removed from the formulation sold in the United States.
Re: Kahane, you won’t find him shown on any NYT video archives, that’s for sure, and in any case it’s your choice to watch or not. Even if you did he is way beyond your limited intellectual capacity to understand, so don’t pollute the intention by opening any of his links. Re: my hard drive, thanks for the warning but you don’t have to invoke a virus you are a virus, fortunately only a benign one one so not to worry, my drive is still very hard and consistent and have never received nor have any complaints.
Comment by yamit82 — December 15, 2008 @ 12:24 am
On a more serious note; Stupid bush has never learned even the most basic cultural symbolisms of the Arabs. Throwing a shoe at those hated is the ultimate put down, biggest insult an Arab can demonstrate next to beheading. That reporter and his station are now the biggest heroes in the Arab World and National Heroes in Iraq. Stupid Americans. stupid presidents?
I bet BHO understands this cultural act. I bet he learned it in his madras.
Comment by yamit82 — December 15, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
Shy:
Can you explain?
http://www.geocities.com/ephraimexposed/
http://www.geocities.com/ephraimexposed/likud.html
http://flisrael.wmod.llnwd.net/a841/o10/sagivSpeech.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9Emm-J0JIo
massive numbers of gentiles, still holding basic Christian beliefs, have come to view themselves as Israelites with an equal inheritance in the Land of Israel. The only difference between this and replacement theology is that they have moved over and made room for us to sit beside them. But know that it is no longer enough for them to be spiritual Israel. They want to be recognized as physical Israel as well. And they are demanding the “right” to make aliyah and this is the most pressing problem of the entire matter.
They believe that they (Israel) must “re-connect to Torah” and that the Jews (Judah) must accept Yeshu as Mashiach and they must join us here in Eretz Yisrael, becoming ONE PEOPLE IN THE LAND, before the Redemption and Mashiach can come. (See Addendum 1)
To facilitate these goals, they have established the following:
1. Advance groups within the Land of Israel to prepare the way physically and financially if the State chooses not to recognize them officially and offer them a sal klita. (See Addendum 2 & Addendum 3)
2. They’ve made inroads politically through the Christian Allies Caucus in the Knesset. Their interim goal seems to be to obtain rights to long-term visas for visiting Christians so they are not encumbered with leaving the country every three months to renew them. This becomes an unbearable hardship on people who are determined to stay here long-term.
3. They have received coaching from Jews to refrain from using certain terminology and to accept calling themselves Bnei Noach, appearing before the nascent Sanhedrin to take an oath as Bnei Noach in order to receive Ger Toshav status. They’ve been led to believe this might be one possible way to gain a foothold in the land until a more satisfactory arrangement can be obtained. (See Addendum 5, #4 and Discussion )
4. They are creating a “Provisional Israelite Council in Exile” in the USA.
“This is a first step in re-establishing the fraternal bonds between B’nai Yosef (Sons of Joseph) and their companions, and his brother, Judah and his companions, with the goal of having one united and eternal house of Israel.” (See Addendum 6)
CONCLUSION
This issue is not going to just go away, as evidenced by this query from an ‘Ephraimite’ to an aliyah blog:
Can you please help me? As far as I know, I do not have Jewish blood line however I have for over 30 years felt Jewish. I study the Bible daily and see the command to make Aliyah for the ones Elohim has scattered. His promise is to gather the house of Ephriam along with the house of Judah back into the land at the end days. I know the Orthodox pray three times a day for Ephraim to come home. Yet, I cannot find anywhere that we are accepted into the land as a citizen. I have found 61 passages calling ALL Israel home. As far as I can tell, only Judah has returned to the land and that is perfectly according to scripture in Zech 12:6-10 that the tents of Judah shall be saved first. How can Ephraim make Aliyah? thank you for your time, shalom, tina
15 Adar Alef 5768
See further:
NEW! (9 Dec 08)EPHRAIMITE INFILTRATION INTO THE LIKUD POLITICAL PARTY
Ephraimites or Ephra-I-am-nots?
Brit-Am Q&A on ‘Ephraimites’
Comment by yamit82 — December 16, 2008 @ 5:06 am
con’t:
good post at Tomer Devorah
There is a very interesting post on Tomer Devorah about identifying the Erev Rav and is a must read for separating from them.
Posted by Geula Girl at 12/12/2008 03:08:00 PM 0 comments
12.07.2008
A VOTE FOR LIKUD IS A VOTE FOR XIAN ALIYAH
I wish I had more time to deal with this issue but I don’t so I am just posting here the information I have received and you can be the judge.
The following was in an email on recommended voting list from Moshe Feiglin for Likud Primaries.
General List
Moshe Feiglin (151)
Sagiv Asulin (106) Young Leadership slot
Well there is something the Israeli public should know about Sagiv Assulin.
The following is an excerpt of an email sent by xians requesting contributions for Sagiv Assulin.
…..leaders with integrity in the Likud and other coalition parties that are beginning to understand who Ephraim is and are willing to work toward bringing Ephraim home! Seeing this with our own eyes was astonishing and exciting. Specifically, on November 16 at the World Wide Biblical Zionists inauguration ceremony, some top Likud party members attended and addressed the approximately 300 attendees.
Those speaking to us were Ayoob Kara, Ullie Edelstein, Gideon Saar, and Sagiv Assulin. Gideon Saar is head of the committee under Benjamin Netanyahu to form the coalition of the next government when the Likud party takes control in February 2009. Ayoob Kara is the Project Operations Manager for WBZ and now a key partner in Ephraim’s coming home. Ben and I were honored to personally meet Ayoob and other Druze leaders.
We were excited and honored to hear the first three men address us/Ephraim as allies and partners in helping Judah and the Land of Israel. The final and key speaker was Sagiv Assulin, Likud member currently running for position in the Knesset. We were astonished as he spoke from his heart calling us brothers and sisters and read from his Scriptures Ezekiel 37 about the sticks coming together! The crowd responded with a standing ovation. This summer Sagiv toured numerous states in the U.S. where he was introduced to Ephraim.
He is Vice President of WBZ and an attorney. As an attorney and Likud leader he is well positioned to represent us, Ephraim.
Support Sagiv Assulin by donating to his campaign. Donations must be received before December 8th. I believe Sagiv has been chosen for such a time as this to support Ephraim’s return to the Land! He is asking Ephraim to support him through prayers and donations.
Sagiv says, “My heart is to see Judah and Ephraim join here in the land and see the hand of HaShem do great and mighty things.” This is our opportunity to support and encourage Sagiv Assulin to open the door through Knesset leadership and legislation for Ephraim to come home. Any amount donated helps.
Here is Sagiv’s speech at the Worldwide Biblical Zionist inauguration.
In case some of you missed my posts on Ephraimites and the WBZ, the main point is they are xians who want to “make aliyah and claim their tribal inheritance”.
EPHRIAM COMING HOME=XIAN ALIYAH
Comment by yamit82 — December 16, 2008 @ 5:09 am
A VOTE FOR LIKUD IS A VOTE FOR XIAN ALIYAH
I wish I had more time to deal with this issue but I don’t so I am just posting here the information I have received and you can be the judge.
The following was in an email on recommended voting list from Moshe Feiglin for Likud Primaries.
General List
Moshe Feiglin (151)
Sagiv Asulin (106) Young Leadership slot
Well there is something the Israeli public should know about Sagiv Assulin.
The following is an excerpt of an email sent by xians requesting contributions for Sagiv Assulin.
http://thekeytoredemption.blogspot.com/2008/12/vote-for-likud-is-vote-for-xian-aliyah.html
Comment by yamit82 — December 16, 2008 @ 5:11 am
Shy another:
http://thekeytoredemption.blogspot.com/
Comment by yamit82 — December 16, 2008 @ 5:14 am
“The argument of the nations here is that we must achieve unity and break down the walls of separation. Is this not fair and logical according the the false thinking of the worshippers of foriegn culture? Is not the unity of all nations and the disappearance of the differences between Israel and the nations the goal of the Hellenists….”
Comment by yamit82 — December 16, 2008 @ 5:21 am
Ted, I knew the problem was getting worse but in view of the above posted information and those that were blocked by your spammer (I hope you post)- I think more input and comments are needed and soon. If as has been stated above that these groups have infiltrated the Likud which might very well be the next government of Israel or lead party, this might be more serious than that which I previously entertained.
Comment by yamit82 — December 16, 2008 @ 5:26 am
Ref: THE MESSIANIC ISRAEL ALLIANCE(MIA)
http://www.messianicisrael.com/who-we-are.html
Comment by yamit82 — December 16, 2008 @ 6:07 am
Yamit, just to let you know that everyone at the top of Manhigut Yehudit had all this material, including the latest video of Assulin, in their hands the moment it was release on the Internet. Manhigut has been aware of the intentions of Evangelical missionaries and worse to gain control of the World Likud organization for a very long time.
Here, too, should you run away from the Likud, these people will become unstoppable and with their monetary backing, will potentially succeed in getting more people to vote for the Likud, without a drop of resistance from where it counts - within.
It is once again up to us. We are worth nothing sitting in some sideline party (and again, which one?) of zilch influence on the directions this country is taking.
United, loyal Jews of Israel of so many persuasions, can remold the Likud to it original charter. The leftists are laughing, Yamit. They have been laughing for 60 years as we Jews marginalize and compromise ourselves in useless sectarian parties, lately left out of coalitions altogether, previously accepted into coalitions on condition of absolute subjugation to whoever rules the roost.
Do you really want to be hit again and again? Looking forward to the day when the assimon drops on your end of the phoneline.
Comment by Shy Guy — December 16, 2008 @ 7:42 am
.
I understand Manhigut supported Assulin and others who support and are on the take from these groups. If true how does that correlate?
This is a real dilemma? Wish I had a good answer. I know that I could never support the Likud unless I was convinced that they would adhere to their original charter which since it was made was never followed even by Begin. Why they have kept it without abridgment is an open question? I guess they want to keep alive the fiction of being right of Labor.
I as well as you can deduce and annunciate the problem but am not convinced yet of your solution. If the Likud has been subverted by those groups, then the logical question is why all of you supporters of Likud are so silent on the matter? I still have some keepsake assimonim; Those were the days!
Comment by yamit82 — December 16, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
from 5: “this year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Martti Ahtisaari… ”
Yes, I remember, upon hearing the news, my first thought was, “Well, whom will they give the prize in MEDICINE to — Dr Kevorkian?”
“Yasser Arafat also got the Nobel Peace Prize. That’s the measuring rod.”
Of course, where the Nobel Prizes are concerned, there’s an important distinction that’s much overlooked: The Peace Prize is different from the others. The judges of Physics, Medicine, Chemistry, Economics, Lierature are all COLLEAGUES from the SAME field of endeavor. And the prize in THOSE fields is almost ALWAYS awarded for some accomplishment which occurred substantially PRIOR to the year of the award; so the discovery or project, etc, has usually had some time to undergo scrutiny, testing, “peer review,” as it were.
The ‘Peace’ Prize, on the other hand, is judged by a gaggle of selected Swedish politicians. Think about it. . . . It’s a prize for political correctness — whatever trendy position regarding some conflict happens to be capturing the headlines of the day. Consequently, even when the recipient is truly worthy (which is rare), the Prize is bound to have been awarded for the wrong reasons.
from 6: “email rec’d: . . . . The Golan does not serve a strategic military purpose any more.”
If that’s true, then why does Syria WANT it? [and please don't be giving me that shmegeggeh about "national pride," etc -- that's BS] In any event, the most important reason for not (ever) giving up the Golan is not strategic security anyway; it’s JUSTICE. What ever happened to “punishment for aggression”? Can you say “Potsdam 1945″?
“. . . . the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result.”
Giving up land — again and again — “for peace” that never comes? Boy, that sure as hell sounds to ME like doing the same thing over & over again, and expecting a different result. If that’s insanity, then the “land for peace,” “two-state solution” types are nutty as a Christmas fruitcake.
from 8: “Whatever the conservative voters in Israel do, they cannot afford to split their votes between so many different political parties.”
Quite so. the last time that happened was ‘91 ['92?]: In the upshot, Avo-DAH walked away with the brass ring — and went straight to Oslo with it. . . .
Comment by dweller — December 16, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
dweller
large supermarket parties in Israel cannot and have not provided the ideological electorate with either the leadership or policies that can nor have in the recent past provided the representation that meets their min. political and ideological requirements. In Israel unlike most western democracies there is a relatively large religious and ideological electorate and in accordance with The Israeli Political System Which Allows Multiplicity of Political thought and Political Parties, It is only inevitable that these voters will only find political expression in narrowly based sectarian political parties.
At best Democracies are in any event mostly serendipitous and one shouldn’t expect too much rationalism and logic to result from such accidental political systems. The larger the political framework the lower the political common denominators.
The Golan does even today serve strategic functions: A- It places Israeli simple artillery in range of Damascus. B- It keeps Syrian Land forces farther away from Israels heartland. C- Our intelligence installations are already in place and none has said that the alternatives are better or more secure or as effective. D- Our investment in Golan military infrastructure has already been built and paid for ( several billions of Dollars worth) since 73, Syrian border has been our quietest border simply because of our strategic presence on the Golan.
Punishment for aggression is important but not my first choice of reasons to stay put. The Golan is first and foremost part of our Historic rights to The Land of Israel. (Golan is part of the Land of Israel whose borders are delineated in the Torah)
If we have no claim or rights to the Golan then we don’t have any rightful claims to any other part of the Land of Israel.
I think that if Syria really wants peace with Israel they should relinquish more land to Israel, then maybe we might consider entering into peace with Syria. Where is it written in stone or Logic that we should reward aggressors and aggression with our LAND? Even if all that I have stated were to be discounted I would never support a position where aggression is committed without having a penalty imposed. The penalty in this case is at least the Golan. ( We are in agreement here).
Comment by yamit82 — December 17, 2008 @ 3:36 am
Yamit:
It doesn’t. They have become aware of it. Patience. A correction is needed.
Mostly short-sitedness but no one has pointed out the errors of their ways for ages until the Manhigut faction joined the Likud and began influencing Central Committee members. It was they who became convinced that Sharon had gone too far against the Likud charter. More than once did the majority of the committee voted against Sharon.
There still is a functioning Likud heart and brain within the party. It is diseased yet cureable, especially if infused with new blood of the same type. It does not have to be fatal. It is up to us.
Comment by Shy Guy — December 17, 2008 @ 5:42 am
I see the problem as tactical and not strategic. My problem with the tactic is its slow pace, as so much damage has been allowed to be inflicted upon us. At such a pace even in the end were Manhigut to be successful will the patient be alive after the operation? Ten years of working and trying seems to me sufficient to show far greater and more positive results than what appears to be the situation today. The law of diminishing returns seems to be in play. Maybe I am wrong but there must be better and more effective options to attain the same strategic goals.
I am not against Feiglin ( I have my doubts and criticisms) but I did want him to succeed but Israel may not have the time to wait for the ultimate success of Manhigut.
Comment by yamit82 — December 17, 2008 @ 6:58 am
Yamit82: Your remarks [item 26] regarding the Golan’s continued strategic value are cogent and sound; I cannot in any way argue with them, and I welcome them. In fact, I think the ideas they represent need to get a lot more play in the US than they do. I hadn’t intended to ignore them in my comments, but only to place the focus where it seemingly NEVER appears in these discussions. It occurred to me long ago that the most potent [earthly] reason these attacks on the Jewish state continue is that the world community [yes, I know: "IS the world indeed a community," but we'll let that pass for now] allows the Arab world to get away with what amount to “limited liability” aggressions.
Even when they FAIL in their intended objectives, they aren’t punished by the world — and the GOI isn’t allowed to punish them either [even if it wanted to, which is ITSELF not at all clear]. They KNOW they’ll be effectively INDEMNIFIED by the world for this crap — so why in the Hell SHOULDN’T they try again & again & again? Who wouldn’t? If I were in their shoes, and had their outlook, I CERTAINLY would.
Your proposal to put real meaning into “land for peace” — i.e., let SYRIA give up land in return for peace from ISRAEL– is right on the money. It’s a concept I’ve been pushing myself. Of course, at first, it gets people to looking at you like a man from Mars, but that’s ok: You have to PLANT seeds before you can expect to see them GROW, and sometimes a bit of a shock is needed to assure that the substance of the kernel will remain where planted till it begins to germinate, maybe much later on. At the very least, the reversal of the tropes points up the outrageousness of the assumption that the proposition can go only one way.
As to the TRULY first reason for holding onto the Golan, again, no dispute here: it’s historically part of the Land of Israel — though I’d say the same about the Bashan, Gil’ad, Edom. . . . And that’s part of another discussion, for another time.
Meanwhile, if you haven’t seen it yet, may I commend to your attention Howard Grief’s newly released and long-awaited book, THE LEGAL FOUNDATION AND BORDERS OF ISRAEL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW: A TREATISE ON JEWISH SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE LAND OF ISRAEL (Mazo Publishers, Jerusalem, 2008).
Comment by dweller — December 17, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
Yamit82: Your points regarding the continuing strategic value of the Golan [in item 26] are cogent, well taken and well-informed; I can’t argue with them. In fact, I wish they would get more play in this country [US]. I had meant, however, to put the focus where I believe it needs to be put, and in a place that seems invariably to be overlooked by all elements of even the national camp whenever discussions of Israel & land arise:
The world community [yes, I know: IS the world a community? but we'll let that pass for now] has never punished Arab aggression against Israel — nor allowed Israel to do the punishing, herself — so the message is invariably communicated that these recurrent assaults against the Jewish state are “limited liability” outrages, and that the Arab world will always be INDEMNIFIED for their losses, whether they fail OR succeed in their putrid objectives.
So why the Hell SHOULDN’T they try again & again & again? What do they have to lose? If I were in their shoes, and I had their outlook, I certainly would. Who wouldn’t?
Your idea of applying “land for peace” properly — i.e., SYRIAN land for ISRAELI peace — is one that has occurred to me for some time now. Of course, it gets people looking at you like a man from Mars — but sometimes a bit of a shock is what is needed to plant seeds, or at least to point up the spuriousness of assuming the tropes have to go only one way.
As to the truly FIRST reason for holding on to the Golan — again — no dispute here. The Golan is indeed historically part of the Land of Israel. Then again, of course, I’d say the same for the Bashan, Gil’ad, Edom…. But that’s a discussion for another time.
Meanwhile, may I commend to your attention, if it hasn’t been already, Howard Grief’s newly-released and long-awaited book, THE LEGAL FOUNDATION AND BORDERS OF ISRAEL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW: A TREATISE ON JEWISH SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE LAND OF ISRAEL (Mazo Publishers, Jerusalem, 2008).
Comment by dweller — December 18, 2008 @ 2:04 am
[...] Glick in Netanyahu’s Grand Coalition People who have been in close contact with Obama’s foreign policy transition team have privately [...]
Pingback by Israpundit » Blog Archive » Will Obama pressure Israel — December 18, 2008 @ 1:57 pm