Doc's Talk: An Election of Great Importance for Israel

Thursday, November 01, 2012

An Election of Great Importance for Israel

Isi Leibler
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=4331

Next week’s U.S. presidential election will have major implications for the entire Western world but in particular for Israel. It is also noteworthy that Israel and the Jews have never featured so prominently in a presidential campaign. In last week’s debate on foreign policy between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney, both candidates competed to demonstrate their pro-Israel credentials and the Jewish state was mentioned no less than 34 times.

Until six weeks ago there was an emerging consensus shared by supporters and opponents alike, that Romney had failed to make an impact and that Obama would be reelected. Yet since the first dramatic debate, the upsurge in support for Romney has been extraordinary and if the polls reflect reality, the outcome could be a real cliff hanger.

Of course, opinion polls can be misleading. The complexity of the Electoral College voting system does not necessarily grant victory to the candidate receiving the majority of votes. The even more critical factor is whether those who actually vote will proportionately adhere to the same trends as those initially polled.

Not surprisingly, many Israelis will be hoping for a Romney win. Despite Obama’s ongoing commitment to providing Israel with military aid and his more recent positive policies towards Israel, it is no secret that he personally loathes Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Most Israelis are fearful that if reelected, no longer needing a charm offensive to garner Jewish support, Obama is likely to repeat the pattern of his first term when he unashamedly reneged on many of his previous undertakings towards Israel.

They are concerned that he will revert to his earlier policy of “adopting daylight between Israel and the US” and will renew pressure on the Jewish state to make further unilateral concessions towards the Palestinians. There is fear that he will again insist that the indefensible 1949 armistice lines be considered as the opening benchmark for negotiating borders and will also press for the division of Jerusalem.

Romney, in contrast, enjoys a cordial personal relationship with Netanyahu. More importantly he also seems to display a far more positive attitude towards the Jewish state. One of his major criticisms of the Administration’s foreign policy has been Obama’s alleged abandonment and continuous public chastisement and humiliation of Israel.

Whereas Obama blames Israeli settlement policies – including home construction in East Jerusalem’s Jewish suburbs – for the impasse with the Palestinians, Romney says plainly that peace will be unattainable until the Palestinians genuinely abandon their objective to destroy and eliminate the Jewish state.

As to Iran, notwithstanding undertakings to do all that is necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear power, should sanctions fail to bring about tangible results there are grave doubts as to whether Obama would be willing to take the tough measures required. However should Romney be elected, whilst presumably providing notice of tougher intentions, during his first months in office he too would be unlikely to immediately initiate drastic military action.

There is a vast chasm between the approaches of both candidates in relation to the Arab world which is increasingly falling under more extreme Islamic and Jihadist influences and where use of the terms Islamic extremism or Islamic terrorism are even banned.

Despite having eliminated Osama bin Laden, the Obama administration has, as a matter of course, appeased Islamists by initially resisting sanctions and failing to support the Iranian dissidents seeking regime change.

Shortly after taking office, Obama infuriated the Mubarak government by legitimizing the Moslem Brotherhood when he insisted that their representatives occupy the front row at his inaugural speech in Cairo. Furthermore, at the outset of protests in Egypt, he abandoned the authoritarian President Hosni Mubarak, regarded as one of the strongest US allies in the Arab world. Since then, his Administration has consistently understated the fanatical extremism of the Moslem Brotherhood and ignored the recent genocidal exhortations against Israel by their newly elected Egyptian leader. The groveling response to the terrorist upsurges in Libya and Egypt is another indicator of the Administration’s policy of Islamic appeasement.

Obama also repeatedly publicly praised the dictatorial Islamist Turkish leader, Recep Erdogan who made himself popular in the Arab world by his anti-Israeli tirades and efforts to impose boycotts and isolate the Jewish state.

Yet, after four years in office, despite President Obama’s desperate efforts to appease and “engage” the Islamists, the US today is more reviled in the Arab world than ever before.

The perception amongst most Israelis is that a Romney administration would be more realistic and tougher towards the Islamists.

However, in contrast, the majority of American Jews, clearly loth to forfeit their liberal DNA, still support Obama and will continue voting Democrat. Besides, like most Americans, economic policies are the principal factors determining their vote.

This also partially reflects the depressing reality that a large proportion of American Jews, especially the more assimilated, no longer consider Israel a major priority when casting their votes. Indeed, for many of the less committed Jews, issues like gay marriage and abortion on demand seem to outweigh the wellbeing of the Jewish state.

On the other hand, there will undoubtedly be a substantial number of Jewish defections from the Obama camp, with the more committed and Orthodox Jewish segments voting heavily against the current president.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has assiduously avoided engaging in the presidential campaign. That has not prevented his political opponents from accusing him of making Israel a “wedge” issue. Yet it would be inconceivable that due to the US Presidential election, an Israeli PM should remain silent on the need to for the world to stand up and take tough action against a potentially nuclear power publicly exhorting the world to support its objective of wiping his country – “a cancer” – off the face of the world. As Netanyahu said to CNN “I am being guided by the Iranian nuclear calendar not the American political calendar”.

But Netanyahu would be less than human if privately he did not yearn for a victory for Romney, who has been both a friend and ally.

If however Obama is reelected, Netanyahu will be obliged to try to overcome the personal animosity and work with him, without compromising Israel’s security or long term strategic interests. This will not be easy but as long as grass roots support for Israel remains strong and Congress does not abandon us, it is possible. From his side Obama may have learnt that his bullying tactics only strengthened public support for Netanyahu in Israel.

And if Romney wins, Israelis should not be euphoric. Although Romney will undoubtedly have a better chemistry with Israel than his predecessor, we still face tough challenges. And we should bear in mind that whereas Romney is undoubtedly a friend, the track records of Republican Presidents towards Israel has also often been problematic.

Irrespective who becomes the next President of the USA, American Jewish leaders must seek to reverse the growing threat from the far left anti-Israeli activists in the Democratic party and reinvigorate the bi-partisan spirit which has been so vital to maintain the strong US-Israel relationship.

The writer’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.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