Doc's Talk: Netanyahu Speaks for the vast majority of Israelis

Thursday, October 04, 2012

Netanyahu Speaks for the vast majority of Israelis

Isi Leibler
October 4, 2012
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=4287

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s skilled oratory last week at the UN (click here to watch the speech), climaxed his highly successful global campaign to convince the Western world that a nuclear Iran controlled by messianic mullahs would not merely impact on Israel but would have catastrophic consequences for the entire civilized world.

It was largely due to his unremitting warnings and threats of unilateral preemptive action, that the US and Europe belatedly imposed sanctions and began paying lip service to utilizing military force as a last resort should sanctions fail to impact.

Unfortunately in the midst of this, a number of disgruntled former Israeli intelligence chiefs began publicly casting doubt about Israel’s capacity to confront Iran alone. Whether they were right or wrong cannot be confirmed. But their irresponsible outbursts did reassure the Iranians that Netanyahu was bluffing and discouraged the US from adopting a tougher stand.

Regrettably Obama’s track record of resorting to decisive military action is dismal and despite his assurances that the US would never enable the Iranians to attain a nuclear military status, it is hard to visualize this administration undertaking decisive military action on its own initiative. Netanyahu therefore pleaded with Obama to draw red lines in relation to Iranian nuclear development, which when crossed would either enable Israel to act or result in the United States itself making a military move.

Obama cynically dismissed Netanyahu’s pleas as “noise” which he pledged to block out. His simultaneous reference to Israel merely being “one of our leading allies in the region” signaled that he no longer felt obliged to pursue his “charm offensive” towards the Jews in relation to Israel. That was further confirmed when he snubbed Netanyahu by refusing to meet him in the course of his visit to the US, despite finding time to appear on TV talk shows.

With the threats currently confronting Israel at so many levels, it is not surprising that most Israelis united in support of their Prime Minister.

However this did not extend to the preposterous responses emanating from some opposition leaders or the left-wing Israeli media. Ha’aretz launched a loathsome campaign accusing Netanyahu of exploiting the Iranian threat as a means of promoting the presidential candidature of his “friend” Romney

This encouraged the pathetic leader of Kadima, Shaul Mofaz, to make one of the most irresponsible outbursts ever made by an Israeli opposition leader. In the Knesset he asked “Prime Minister, tell me who is our biggest enemy, the US or Iran? Who do you want replaced Ahmadinejad or Obama?”

Needless to say these pathetic attacks were quoted by the increasingly hostile liberal American media as well as left-wing American Jews who began chanting their mantras about “Bibi interfering in domestic US politics”. One leading Jewish American commentator made the absurd statement “I’ve never seen an Israeli PM who has so mismanaged Israel US relations”. This even emboldened a number of Democratic Congressman to voice their condemnation of Netanyahu.

Undoubtedly, Netanyahu would prefer Romney, who consistently expresses support for Israel, to become president rather than Obama, who personally loathes him and exhibits little positive chemistry towards Israel.

But the reality is that Netanyahu has assiduously avoided engaging in the US presidential elections and on occasion, even lavishly praised Obama. It is surely outrageous to accuse the PM of Israel of meddling in US domestic politics because he relates to the need to impose red lines on an issue that has genuine existential implications for his country.

The United Nations reflects the prevailing global malaise. Last Monday, Ahmadinejad bizarrely attended a UN summit on “the rule of law” where he accused Israel of being a “fake regime” which “will be eliminated”. Two days later on Yom Kippur, representatives of all U N nations - other than the US and Canada - listened respectfully whilst the genocidal holocaust denier, a brutal dictator, preached morality to them.

President Obama’s subsequent address dealt primarily with the Muslim riots. Much of it condemned the crude anti-Islamic film, for which the US was never responsible. Yet he only made passing mention of the state sanctioned hate propaganda against Christians and Jews which dominates the Islamic world.

In relation to Iran, despite failed US diplomacy, he not only omitted any reference to red lines but even failed to state - as he had in the past - that all options were open if the Iranians continued their drive towards nuclearization.

The following day, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas accused Israel of criminal activity and threatened a new intifada unless Israelis capitulated to his demands. This followed his earlier meeting with Alan Dershowitz and a few other naive Jews to whom Abbas had pledged he would take a more moderate line towards Israel.

He was followed by Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu who bent over backwards in his UN address to be bipartisan, thanking Obama, ignoring his snubs and playing down any tension between them. He claimed that the objective of both Israel and America was to act as a barrier against “the forces of medievalism which seek a world” in which death rather than life is glorified” He warned of the dangers of a “nuclear armed Al Qaeda” and predicted that “red lines”, would prevent rather than lead to war.

He visually displayed a red line on the sketch of a bomb with a fuse to illustrate Iran’s progress in amassing sufficient enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb which he predicted would be achieved by the summer of 2013. The sketch was denigrated as childish by churlish Israeli politicians and much of the liberal media but proved to be extraordinarily effective and received wide exposure.

We face difficult times. Despite reassuring statements made by both parties, there is no denying that the US-Israel relationship is exceedingly fragile. There is a mutual lack of confidence between President Obama and PM Netanyahu. All the White House seeks from Israel are further concessions being extended to the Palestinians.

In the meantime, whilst the Middle East region is undergoing profound upheavals, the Iranians are enjoying the spectacle of Big Satan and Little Satan sparring with one another as they progress relentlessly towards their nuclear objective.

Understandably, many Israelis are deeply concerned with the prospect of Obama being reelected and seeking to impose indefensible 1949 armistice lines as his first step to implementing Middle East peace.

To be an Israeli leader is a thankless task. Our most important objective must now be to set aside minor differences and on this occasion unite in support of our government and Prime Minister Netanyahu.

There is an enormous reservoir of goodwill to Israel amongst Americans at the grass roots level. If they see that our PM speaks on behalf of the overwhelming majority of his citizens on this issue, they will realize that the allegations against him meddling in US domestic politics are simply untrue. It will also encourage them to pursue their own interests by exerting public pressure on their politicians to tighten the screws and take whatever measures necessary to forestall the global Iranian nuclear threat.

The writer’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com
He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk