Israel’s Electoral/Security Earthquake: Caroline Glick Joins The Fray Via Hayemin Hehadash – The “New Right” Party Emerges!! Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

FULL DISCLOSURE: over a decade ago – specifically, in the summer of 2008 – when this expert in Islamic Jihad immigrated to Israel, a cadre of well-placed and highly-connected Israeli opinion makers stated (in paraphrase form): if we (who know her well) could encourage the inestimable Caroline Glick to join the electoral fray, would you consider bringing your talents into “the process?” Hmm.

LO and behold, two years later, in April 2010, we were introduced at a privately-held security conference in Jerusalem – which was, incidentally, coordinated by these hands. Be that as it may, as it happened, when it came time to shake hands, Caroline stated (again, in paraphrase form): I know who you are, and so does my mother. We love your writing! Sweet.

BUT while going down memory lane is certainly a welcome distraction (from that which is contributing to the west’s decline, namely, the red-green alliance), know that this is inconsequential, especially, when considering the grave matters at hand, that is, who will steer Israel’s helm at this VERY highly critical juncture.

STIPULATED, Israel’s security situation is always on a trip-wire. After all, only the comatose and severely mentally challenged are unaware of said reality within the jungle-like Middle East. Even so, the urgent question remains: why is it that under the long-time leadership of so-called right-wing “Bibi” a/k/a “Mr. Security” (from 2009 to date), the looming dangers have steadily increased, instead of being tamped down? Rhetorical.

YES, he campaigns from the right, but, make no mistake, he governs from the left. The following is more than an evidentiary (recent) trail of this incendiary charge: “PM Netanyahu’s Appeasement of Hamas = Increased Terror Attacks = Dead/Maimed Jews. Why Won’t He Change Course?” Read it. Study it. Pay it forward.

Gal Berger גל ברגר

@galberger

Exclusive: 3 suitcases w 15 million dollars in cash entered Gaza today w the qatari envoy through Israel (Erez crossing point). The money goes to Hamas, to pay salaries of civil employees. Exclusive pic

THAT being established, a large segment of the majority Jewish public (secular and religious) is, to one degree or another, imbued with Zionist ethos – of which right-wing, nationalist sentiment runs deep and to the core. By extrapolation, coddling terrorists is an absolute NO-NO! Ipso facto, the last straw for many Likud voters was “Bibi’s” (latest) appeasement of Hamas’s terror masters, to a degree unprecedented in Israeli politics! Read: $ 15 million in pay-offs. Blood money. But even within centrist circles, trust, this craven appeasement was a bridge too far. Ya’ think?? Not only that, it is dangerous to underestimate the Zionist public’s underlying betrayal, regardless of “Bibi’s” jive-talk and that of his craven mouthpieces. Never mind the feeling(s) of humiliation….beyond frustration and the pale too.

IN this regard, over the years, it is among the aforementioned public that a volcano of outrage has been bubbling. So much so, it became necessary to document its trajectory. Guess when? On the cusp of the last election, March 17, 2015 – that’s when! In fact, some may recall the following mainstream interview, in so far that it circled the internet like a house on fire: “Can Israel Survive As The Jewish State? – An Interview With Adina Kutnicki ” Imagine that.

AS night follows day, here we go again, but this time there is an added twist – and some real “hope for change.” Indeed, the seemingly invincible “King Bibi” has, for the first time, the challenge of his political life from the most formidable trio of authentic and proven right-wingers via the newly formed party, Hayemin Hehadash, the New Right! Yippee, the real “Lions/Lionesses of Zion!”

Naftali-Bennett.jpg

ENTER, the new party’s Chairman, Naftali Bennett. His bonafides not only surpass the highest bar in the security arena, but his business acumen is stellar alike. His political career is no less accomplished. In other words, from day one, he has the chops to lead the nation from a security-wise, economic-wise, and education-wise perspective. Not too shabby. See here.

AS to his right-hand partner, the party’s second in command, well, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked has kept her promises in her capacity as the nation’s top Justice enforcer – despite all of the obstacles (actually, well-laid traps) put in her path by the leftist/Arabist-bent AG’s office! Indeed, she is an intellectual and formidable force to be reckoned with – but don’t be distracted by her foxy-looking physical exterior. As is known, looks are deceiving. Lesson learned: don’t mess with Ayelet!

AYELET SHAKED.jpg

AND rounding out this “take-no-prisoners” trio is, none other than, the immeasurable Caroline Glick – a multi-talented powerhouse who needs little introduction to this site’s readership.

Longtime Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick is running on Hayemin Hehadash’s list in the April elections, she announced on Wednesday.

Caroline is a relentless Zionist fighter,” party co-chairman Naftali Bennett said. “With her, we are building today the dream team of the Israeli Right in order to expand the right-wing block – so that Israel can be triumphant again.”

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, the party’s other leader, called Glick “a courageous fighter symbolizing the real, pure, conservative Right. She will be a great addition to the Knesset from our side.”

Glick expressed excitement in joining Hayemin Hehadash, and would “join forces with people entirely committed to Zionism and love of Israel.

Together we will work to protect Israel, to increase its security and to enact truly right-wing policies,” Glick stated. “This is an emotional day for me. I call on all those whose hearts beat with a Zionist spirit, secular and religious, to join us. This is your home.”

Bennett and Shaked founded Hayemin Hehadash this week, breaking off from Bayit Yehudi. The party is meant to be solidly right-wing, with a mix of religious, secular and traditional candidates.

Glick has been a columnist for the Post since 2002, and in recent years began writing for Maariv and American far-right website Breitbart.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu considered Glick to be one of his appointees to the Likud list in 2015, but decided against it because, Likud sources say, she harshly criticized him in some of her columns.

Meretz came out against Glick, saying “Hayemin Hehadash [the New Right] proved that it is the same old, inciting Right. She who leads wild incitement on social media and on every other stage joins he who tried to destroy secularism and she who tried to destroy the judiciary.”

Also on Wednesday, the National Union, a party that ran with Bayit Yehudi in the last Knesset, began a negative campaign against Bennett and Shaked. The party called the ministers’ political maneuver a “dangerous turn” that divided religious Zionists and the Right “for petty politics and personal promotion.”

The party released a video with the announcement to introduce Glick to the Israeli public.

BY the bye, pay no mind to the sour grapes emanating from National Union. As NU honchos know, religious Zionists are fed up too with the faux right-wing blowhards.  

STILL yet, to round out this earthquake in Israeli politics, listen up to the following brief video. Oh, it has English subtitles for non-Hebrew speakers, thereby, patriots everywhere will not mistake its underpinnings!

BOTTOM LINE:

AS we say in Israel, sach ha’kol, at the end of it all, it remains to be seen if the majority Zionist public chooses the right (no pun intended) course on election day, April 9th. Not only that, there is no doubt that “King Bibi” will promise the sun, moon, and the stars (with payolas at the ready for certain influential folks) to all those who stay the course – thus, keeping him at the helm, only, to betray them once more. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me a third time….. 

BUT if this unabashed, unapologetic, nationalist, right-winger hasn’t stated a clear and convincing case – as to why reversing course is a must for Israel’s long-term security – it is not for the lack of trying. Still, there are times when doubling-down is the way to go. Thus, a message was posted atop the Facebook page of yours truly. It reads:

“WHILE I have never gone out on a limb to endorse any of the opportunists within Israel’s fractured political sphere, suffice to say: this time is different! It is of the essence.

The trio from the new party, “Hayemin Hehadash” (the New Right), are not only accomplished fighters for Israel, they are LIONS of ZION!! My (discerning) partner, “my Doc”, agrees. So, we are encouraging ALL of our formidable colleagues, friends, family & true (white and blue) Zionists in Israel to support this party & bring them to victory!! KADIMA….”

COLLECTIVELY, they can bring Israel’s enemies to their knees – and that’s enough of a reason to PRAY FOR THEIR SUCCESS!

Image result for pics of bennett shaked and glick

 

{re-blogged at TheHomelandSecurityNetwork} click “Archives” to read, dated Jan. 4, 2019
{MEMO: FB’s censors are limiting the sharing of Adina Kutnicki: A Zionist & Conservative Blog! Indeed, the following message from FB’s censors is crystal clear:

MESSAGE FAILED

Advertisements

CIA’s BRENNAN, A CONVERT TO ISLAM, PUSHED TALIBAN TERROR RELEASE! WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?(EXPLOSIVE VIDEO)Commentary By Adina Kutnicki


John Brennan: Pushed for the release of five Taliban leaders since 2011.

John Brennan: Pushed for the release of five Taliban leaders since 2011.

ON matters of grave import, this site checks with its own trusted sources before reporting on explosive information, even though often drawing its own (blog) commentary conclusions. So, as a matter of record, back in February 2013, it was cited: yes, John Brennan indeed converted to Islam and there was no reason to believe otherwise.

In line with this information, the following commentaries were noted and they have now come full circle:

Circle One:

But to truly understand how the circle formed between the Islamist-in-Chief and his choice for Director of the CIA, one must also go back to the oh so “mysterious” death, one which took place during Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s first term.

Circle Two:

Not only that, but in what alternative universe is it acceptable for the Commander-in-Chief’s CIA pick to eschew the Bill of Rights? Indeed, in a fully primed anti-American one – that universe!

Circle Three:

Which brings us back to another ! “mysterious” death, that of investigative reporter Michael Hastings. How many understood Brennan’s related footprints and fingerprints?

Circle Four:

Hence, unraveling the patch quilt connection between Obama’s “mysterious”, non-transparent past and Brennan, sitting atop the CIA, comes into sharp relief.

Therefore, demanding the release of Taliban commanders, under the reign of Barack HUSSEIN Obama, appeared to be only a matter of time. An anti-American Commander-in-Chief colludes with an equally Islamist-driven CIA Director, a match made in anti-American hell!

CIA Director Accused of Converting To Islam Pushed For Release of Taliban Commanders

The outrage over the exchange of five top level Taliban commanders for Bowe Bergdahl, a deserter at best and traitor who helped the Taliban murder his fellow soldiers at worst, is palpable. The role of CIA Director John Brennan in pushing for this deal could bolster the claims made by former FBI Agent John Guandolo last year that Brennan converted to Islam while a station chief in Saudi Arabia in the 1990′s, as relayed byShoebat.com.

According to the Daily Beast, Brennan – along with another interesting figure – have been pushing for the release of these five Taliban terrorist commanders since at least 2011:

For years, CIA Director John Brennan and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough were part of a small group of Obama administration officials who believed that five relatively high-ranking Taliban commanders could be released under certain conditions with manageable risk of harm to American interests. For years, senior defense and intelligence officials disagreed—and were poised to block a potential trade for the Taliban five and American hostage Bowe Bergdahl.

By 2014, many of the skeptics had left the Obama administration; Brennan, McDonough, and their allies assumed new roles at the very top of the Obama administration; and the White House and its allies at State were able to convince their replacements to sign off on the deal.

“All of us on the National Security team were unanimous in supporting and recommending that we take this opportunity,” National Security Advisor Susan Rice told CNN Friday. But for years, that was not the case and Brennan and McDonough were opposed to other senior officials.

The logic Brennan used when making his case was suspect as well. Moreover, two figures that have by and large been Obama loyalists even objected to the deal:

Back in 2011, the idea these five prisoners could be released safely was opposed by Leon Panetta, who served in Obama’s first term as secretary of defense and director of the CIA. James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, was also opposed. But Brennan and others argued that the Taliban five were primarily focused on fighting against other Afghans and never had a record of attacking Americans outside of their own country. They had extensive ties to al Qaeda, but were focused on their own civil war, not international jihad.

As Shoebat.com has reported, when it comes to U.S. national security, Brennan has often demonstrated a desire to defer to the umbrella group under which the Taliban essentially resides.

Also in 2011, Muslim Brotherhood agent and attorney Farhana Khera sent Brennan a letter imploring him to create a task force that would “purge” the training materials used to educate law enforcement and homeland security officials. Materials deemed offensive to Muslim Brotherhood individuals and groups (America’s enemies) would be taken out. Not only did Brennan promptly respond to Khera but he granted her much of what she wanted.

Earlier this year, Shoebat.com relayed and analyzed the findings of Seymour Hersh and discovered that Brennan’s successor – David Petraeus – was in charge of a weapons trafficking operation run out of Benghazi that was designed to ship weapons to Syrian rebels. The country of Qatar funded this operation in conjunction with Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

It’s rather obvious that the agenda of funding the rebels has remained in place. As such, Brennan is clearly interested in aiding in the effort. Earlier this week, Shoebat.com reported on the likelihood that the five Taliban commanders released to Qatar would actually become assets for that country’s interests in Syria.

Based on these new developments relative to the controversial release of Bowe Bergdahl – along with Brennan’s interest in pushing for it – the interview with Guandolo during which he made the explosive claim that Brennan converted to Islam takes on added significance. Here are the relevant portions of it:

interviewed Guandolo nearly a year after he made that shocking claim. If you listen, you will know that Guandolo is adamantly sticking by his story.

DO pay sharp attention to the embedded interview by Tom Trento, another of this site’s contacts.

IF anything, and even though it appears as if the criminal regime of Obama Inc. will make good on its plans to bring down America, the fact of the matter is that a large (patriotic) segment of the population (as well as other westerners, ex pats included) now know why so many anti-American decisions have co-opted the People’s House.

In fact, one such geo-political analyst who holds Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s (Islamic) feet to the fire, none other than Caroline Glick, is an American-Israeli whose voice is heard around the world. Deservedly so.

And if Glick’s op-ed in the Jerusalem Post doesn’t expose the Islamist-in-Chief’s mendacity, heralding the release of Talibans killers as “justifiable” policy, well, little else will suffice:

What was it about the Bergdahl trade tipped the scales? Why is this decision different from Obama’s other foreign policy decisions? For instance, why is the public outraged now when it wasn’t outraged in the aftermath of the jihadist assault on US installations in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, in which US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were murdered? Politically, Obama emerged unscathed from failures in every area he has engaged. From Iraq to Iran to Syria to Libya to Russia and beyond, he has never experienced the sort of across the board condemnation he is now suffering. His political allies and media supporters always rallied to his side. They always explained away his failures.

So what explains the outcry? Why are people like Senator Dianne Feinstein, who have been supportive of Obama’s nuclear appeasement of Iran, up in arms over the Bergdahl swap? There are three aspects of the Bergdahl deal that distinguish it from the rest of Obama’s foreign policy blunders.

First, the Bergdahl deal was conducted in an unlawful manner and the White House readily acknowledged that it knowingly broke the law by not informing Congress 30 days in advance of the swap. This brazen lawbreaking angered Obama’s loyal allies in Congress who, like Feinstein, were insulted by his behavior.

Second, Obama initiated the story and made himself the sole owner of the swap.

Obama didn’t have to make the Bargdahl swap a story about his foreign policy. He chose to. As commentators have argued, if Obama had simply ordered the Defense Department to issue a press release announcing the swap the story probably wouldn’t have caused more than the normal amount of controversy.

And whereas Benghazi was a story about jihadists attacking, and Obama was pilloried – and defended – for his response to an act of aggression initiated by US enemies, Obama presented the Bergdahl swap as his brainchild. So it is impossible to blame anyone else for this move, or wish it away.

As the administration saw it, the public would rally around the leader over this feel-good story.

Obama obviously believed that the Bergdahl trade would help him to surmount his opponents’ criticism over the Veterans’ Administration scandal and other issues.

And this is where his failure to understand the disposition of the American people comes into play.

The third aspect of the swap that distinguishes it from his other foreign policy failures is that by organizing the ceremony at the Rose Garden, and making it a story about himself, Obama denied his supporters the tools they have used in every other instance to explain away his failures and justify his counterproductive decisions.

Obama sailed into office by presenting himself as a non-ideological pragmatist. Obama recognized that the public was tired of foreign policies based on ideology. George W. Bush lost public support for the war in Iraq, and for his foreign policy goal of bringing freedom to the Islamic world more generally, when his ideologically charged rhetoric of American exceptionalism stopped matching the situation on the ground.

A year after Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq, the sight of US military contractors being lynched in Fallujah soured the public on American exceptionalism. In Obama, they hoped that they found the antidote to Bush – a man who promised to replace ideology with hard-nosed pragmatism.

In the event, Obama turned out to be even more driven by ideology than Bush was. Obama is the anti-Bush not because he matches Bush’s ideology with pragmatism. He is the anti-Bush because he matches Bush’s grand foreign policy based on American exceptionalism with his own grand foreign policy based on American moral deficiency.

He made this clear most recently at his commencement address at West Point last month where he stipulated that “American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We can’t exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everybody else… .”

As to American exceptionalism, Obama sneered, “What makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions.”

But while Obama’s critics have pointed out the radicalism at the heart of his foreign policy from the outset of his presidency, his supporters were always able to explain it away.

Obama’s appeasement of the Iranians was pragmatic.

We don’t want a war there, they say.

His support for the Muslim Brotherhood is not radical. It too is pragmatic, they soothe.

And so on and so forth.

As for Benghazi, in the fog of war, the media preferred its commitment to Obama’s reelection over its responsibility to report the truth of what happened.

Obama’s success in getting away with serial foreign policy failures, and his success in hiding the radical ideological basis of his decisions has always owed to his supporters’ ability to plausibly deny both the failures and the ideological motivation for his actions.

His Rose Garden announcement made such spin all but impossible. Americans are not particularly interested in foreign policy. But there are a few things that they won’t buy.

They won’t buy that a man who comes to the White House sporting a Taliban beard and praising Allah in Arabic is a normal American father.

They won’t buy spin that describes a deserter as an exemplary soldier.

They don’t want to free five senior terrorists and mass murderers in order to buy Bergdahl’s release.

In believing that the public would side with him and Bergdahl and Bergdahl’s dad against critics of the deal, Obama showed that for all his propaganda prowess, he doesn’t understand the public.

The public didn’t oppose the war in Iraq because they thought the US is morally deficient. They opposed the war in Iraq because Bush wasn’t winning it. And the public believed that Bush’s push for the abstract goal of democracy lay at the heart of the failure on the ground.

For nearly six years, Obama and his supporters have managed to fend off allegations that his foreign policy is even more ideological – and far more radical – than Bush’s by channeling the public’s aversion to pie-in-the-sky rhetoric and obfuscating facts. But the Bergdahl announcement at the Rose Garden ended all of that.

The reason Obama is being denounced for the Bergdahl swap is because he orchestrated a radical spectacle. Try as he may to castigate critics of the deal as partisan and cynical, Obama cannot pretend away the fact that the ceremony he arranged and oversaw was an open celebration of an American defeat, by the US president and the unsympathetic parents of an accused deserter.

And worse still for Obama’s protestations of pragmatism, his decision to take sole ownership of the swap revealed his ideological myopia. Only someone blinded by a worldview in which America is morally deficient could have thought that Americans would join him and the Bergdahls in celebrating an American defeat.

And now everyone knows what makes him tick.

MOST inherently, either via impeachment or court-martial – whatever gets the job done – this much is for sure: Barack HUSSEIN Obama is the first head that has to roll. In tandem, several top players have to fall in line too, including Brennan and a gaggle of others. And even though the (mega) damage done to the nation may never be fully reversed, it doesn’t obviate the necessity for national honor to be restored. 

FOR if the POTUS absconds from prosecution (as well as his henchpeople), even though he perpetrated high crimes and misdemeanors, is America, any longer, governed by the rule of law? Furthermore, if allowed to go unpunished, what makes America any different from so many nations ruled by juntas

SEC KERRY’S DUAL LOYALTY: HIS CLOSE IRANIAN FAMILIAL CONNECTION. Conflict of Interest & ILLEGAL, As MANDATORY Due Diligence Thrown Overboard! Where Is The Outrage? Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Apparently,“dual loyalty” is only dragged to the fore – within U.S. power centers and beyond – when American Jews voice concern and support for Israel. Not only that, but the case against Jonathan Pollard (as one egregious example, yet there are enumerable others) bespeaks of more than a double standard, and many of America’s top leaders have admitted as much. How so? Well, consider the following analysis from the esteemed Caroline Glick:

According to a new history of the CIA’s involvement in the Middle East, America’s Great Game, reviewed this week in The Wall Street Journal, in 1951 Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA’s operations chief in the Middle East set up a fake anti-Israel lobby in Washington called American Friends of the Middle East. Its job was to weaken popular support for the Jewish state. The CIA’s anti-Israel front group operated for 16 years, until the fact that it was a CIA front group was exposed in 1967 by the far-left Ramparts magazine.

And this brings us to Jonathan Pollard, the American Jewish naval intelligence analyst who is now serving the 29th year of his life sentence for transferring classified materials to Israel.

Snowden’s revelations and the story of the CIA’s anti-Israel front group in Washington make clear that US indignation over Israel’s fielding of an agent in Washington was equal parts self-righteousness and hypocrisy.

There was nothing extraordinary in Israel’s efforts to gain information that its American ally didn’t wish to share with it. Allies spy on each other. And they use sympathetic locals to achieve their ends. South Korean Americans have been caught spying for South Korea. Taiwanese Americans have been caught spying for Taiwan, and so on.

US prosecutors prosecuted, and US judges convicted these agents of friendly countries for their criminal activities. The average prison term meted out to such agents of friendly governments runs from four to seven years. Their average time served in prison is two to four years.

Pollard was different not because of what he did, nor even, necessarily because he transferred classified information to Israel rather than to Britain.

Pollard was unique because he was an American Jew transferring classified information to Israel. And the discriminatory treatment he has received from the US government owes entirely to the same institutional anti-Jewish bias that caused the CIA to form the first anti-Israel lobby in Washington, just three years after Israel gained independence.

As former CIA director R. James Woolsey explained to National Public Radio in March, “I really take the view now that if someone says [Pollard] should not be released after 28 years, just pretend that he’s a Filipino American or a Greek American and pardon him. I see no reason why people should treat a Jewish American who spied for Israel on those grounds more harshly than they treat a Filipino American who spied for the Philippines or a South Korean American who spied for South Korea.”

Pollard’s prolonged imprisonment, and the fact that the criminal justice system has been used against him in such a profoundly discriminatory manner have brought about a situation where his only chance of early release is through a Presidential grant of clemency.

On Tuesday, former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson – a close supporter of President Barack Obama – became the latest in a long line of senior US officials from both parties who have called for Obama to commute Pollard’s sentence.

In his letter to the president, Richardson wrote, “In my view, there is no longer a need for a discussion today. Virtually everyone who was in a high position of government – and dealt with the ramifications of what Pollard did at the time – now support his release.”

Never mind that Israel is the ONLY staunch, reliable ally in the fiery cauldron of the Mid East and always in the cross hairs of those seeking to annihilate half of world Jewry – promising to wipe Israel off the map! 

BACK TO KERRY.

Such obvious truth is completely two sheets to the wind, with nigh as much attention paid to it as an unwanted child, even as a Sec of State is as compromised as a two bit whore. Perhaps even more so, as prostitutes depend on their pimps for their livelihoods, hardly in positions to two-time them.

Back in March 2013, but buried beneath the radar, came forth a situation so explosive, that it’s underexposing smacks of more than a grave dereliction of duty. The media, as well as many power brokers inside the Beltway, surely knew. A pox on their heads. And now that Obama Inc.’s fingerprints are all over an “accommodation” with Iran’s genocidal regime, well, the truth (and its outing) couldn’t be more acute.

Similarly, Huma Abedin’s terror background has always been stamped with Hill’s “kosher” seal of approval and powerful poohbahs – with the media in tow – acceded to an omerta. Why is this germane? Well, a current Sec of State is compromised on the Shia side, just as Hill, the former Sec, was (still is) duly disloyal on the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood side, in conjunction with her mobbed up (former) Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin.

America (west) and Israel; between a Shia/Sunni rock and a hard place!

Secretary of State John Kerry demonstrates why Huma Abedin’s background mattered

When folks like Andrew McCarthy articulated why our findings about then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s close adviser Huma Abedin were important, his camp was smeared as being discriminatory. His argument had nothing to do with discrimination or Islamophobia. It had everything to do with Abedin’s familial ties compromising her judgment and allegiances to the U.S. Constitution.Here we have an example that demonstrates this reality further and it comes via Kenneth Timmerman, who has picked up on the fact that the new Secretary of State – John Kerry – has a son-in-law with family still living in Iran. This reality could conceivably affect how Kerry deals with the Iranians.Via the Daily Caller:

In a greeting to the Iranian people on the occasion of the traditional New Year (Nowruz) holiday last week, Secretary of State John Kerry exposed a secret that journalists and academics have been agonizing over for the past six weeks: the fact that his daughter has married an Iranian-American who has extensive family ties to Iran. “I am proud of the Iranian-Americans in my own family, and grateful for how they have enriched my life,” Kerry said in the official statement. Kerry also said he was “strongly committed to resolving” the differences between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, “to the mutual benefit of both of our people.” Politicians like to keep their families off-limits to the press, a decorum enforced vigorously when it comes to politicians who are in favor with the national media but ruthlessly discarded for others. But in Kerry’s case, there could be larger ramifications. Since its inception, the FBI has vetted U.S. government officials involved in national security issues, and it generally won’t grant clearances to individuals who are married to nationals of an enemy nation or have family members living in that country, for fear of divided loyalties or, more simply, blackmail.

There it is. Certainly, even leftists can comprehend this concept without inserting race into their thought processes (oh, wait). Imagine a scenario in which a representative of Iran’s mullahs approaches the State Department with a list of demands that, if not met, could have serious consequences for Kerry’s in-laws living in Iran. In the current political construct, such demands could conceivably involve the U.S. withholding money, weapons, or aid earmarked for a country like Egypt as tensions in the Middle East escalate. While that may not sound like a bad idea to those of us who understand the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood, shouldn’t our Secretary of State’s sole interest be in lockstep with the interests of the United States? Last year, Abedin’s familial ties to the Brotherhood prompted calls to see her Form 86, which she would have had to fill out in order to gain a security clearance. If she did not, we have a problem. Similarly, if Kerry did not, we also have a problem. Who would have thought that two consecutive Secretaries of State would have to deal with such controversy? Then again, enough people have to care in order for it to actually be a controversy. What time is ‘Dancing with the Stars’ on?

Critically intrinsic to the discussion at hand is the way in which Islamic-leaning, anti-Americans shift horses, at least in relation to the Sunni/Shia centuries long war for Islamic hegemony. As a matter of record, although the Islamist-in-Chief’s familial foot is categorically implanted in the Sunni side, special circumstances warranted a (temporary) shift in allegiance, as indicated herein: OBAMA’S SELL OUT TO IRAN: ITS KEY INTERSECTION WITH THE RED/GREEN ALLIANCE. BOXING IN ISRAEL CORE. But have no worries, the Brotherhood Mafia, his Sunni beneficiaries, are reaping many rewards within America’s power centers! Americans, not so much.

Thus, doesn’t the “news” from DEBKAfile Intelligence, as to the Islamist-in-Chief’s desertion of his Sunni brothers (again, temporarily, and only in relation to the Mid East’s reshuffling), as well as Israel, make infinite sense?

After a lecture captioned “Islamic Revolution against Global Arrogance,” which he delivered at the Imam Sadegh University in Tehran Wednesday, Dec. 11, a student asked the Revolutionary Guards commander whether any of the Western powers in Geneva had asked for Iran’s missiles to be reduced.

“We will never do this,” he replied.

Asked by another student to clarify his statement that Iranian missiles can reach Israel, Jafari replied: “We are still increasing the range of our missiles, but currently the Supreme Leader has commanded that we limit the range of our missiles to 2,000 km.”
The general therefore released to the public four facts already known to Israeli, Saudi and Turkish leaders,say DEBKAfile’s military sources:

1. The American and European negotiators in Geneva asked to discuss the ranges of Iranian ballistic missiles with Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, without citing the types capable of delivering nuclear warheads. Zarif refused to discuss this.
2. The Western delegations persevered, stressing that the US and Europe were concerned over the accelerated co-production by Iran and North Korea of the Shehab-6, which has a range of 3,000-5,600 km, and when operational can reach America and most parts of Europe.
3. The US and European delegates gave the Iranians to understand that they would like to extend the six-month nuclear freeze agreed in Geneva (for which no starting date has yet been set) to the apply to extra range being added to Iran’s ballistic missiles.

There was no objection, they said, to Iran retaining the Shehab missiles with a range of 1,500-2,000 km, which would be capable of striking Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. They were only concerned about extending their range to cover America or Europe.
4.  Jaafari’s remarks to students’ questions, which were most probably planted beforehand, lifted a corner of the veil concealing from the public the secret provisions of the deal with Iran on its missile arsenal. According to DEBKAfile’s Middle East sources, officials in authority in Ankara, Riyadh and Jerusalem knew all about it.

Alas, those who have little understanding of the inner Muslim strife between Sunni/Shia , yet do know about Obama’s clear nexus to Sunni Islam – via his Kenyan roots and the House of Saud – can’t wrap their thoughts around him jumping ship to the Shia side! Kinship, beside the point.

HOWEVER, if one internalizes that he chose a Sec of State with DEEP Iranian connections, one has to ask: doesn’t Obama’s rush to Iran’s nuclear aspirations become that much clearer?

MOST significantly, is the following assessment from Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld’s policy center, American Center for Democracy:

“IAEA Official: ‘We’re Not Prepared’ to Verify Agreement with Iran,” for the following reasons:

 “* The IAEA was not fully consulted during the November negotiations between Iran and P5+1 nations.

* The IAEA may not have sufficient manpower to carry out required daily activities at Natanz and Fordow.

* The IAEA has very few inspectors with technical knowledge of heavy water reactors such as the one at Arak.

* The IAEA will not be able to render much substantive insight into data supplied by Iran because the agency will not be able to verify with confidence the source or reliability of the information.”

Despite these obstacles and Iran’s latest refusal to allow “inspection of its heavy water reactor in Arak,” the White House killed the amendment that could have allowed the reinforcing of the sanctions on Iran, for its guaranteed failure to stop its nuclear enrichment program. The White House dancing to the mullahs’ tune has dangerous implications.

In the end, while the Islamist-in-Chief’s MAIN consiglieri is Iranian-born Jarrett, and his Sec of State’s son-in-law is Iranian and well connected to its power brokers, what are the chances he even gave a backward glance to Saudi Arabia’s and Turkey’s concerns?

Indeed, there is certainly no love lost for the Saudis and Turks at this site, but they are related to his Sunni side! And even though Barack HUSSEIN Obama is religiously aiding the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood Mafia in various ways, inside and outside the U.S., what makes anyone think that Israel, a nation the POTUS despises to the core of his being, is faring any better?

This is precisely why this blog warned about Obama’s second term plans for Israel and its out-sized dangers – a catastrophe in the making!

VALERIE JARRETT: Iran’s “Deal Maker”, Her Main Mission As Obama’s Consigliere. Western Civilization’s Hit Woman…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

It is seemingly impossible to quantify the amount of treachery committed by Iranian born Valerie Jarrett to western civilization, try as one may. In tandem with her boss, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, they are the most DANGEROUS duo in the western world. That’s not an easy hurdle to pass.

But if not for a highly trusted contact in mid 2012, at the inception of this site, the reportage on Val would have been minimal, if at all. A heads up from an “in the know” Washington, DC associate kept dropping hints….again and again. It is important to give credit where it is due. No one is an island.

That being said, a starting point was documented, one which included Valerie Jarrett’s crimes against America and Israel in particular and the west in general.

Exhibit A: Valerie Jarrett’s Communist Leanings & Why She Matters…Serving As Barack Hussein Obama’s Alter Ego…Cementing The Red/Green Alliance

Exhibit B: Valerie Jarrett…Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s Communist/Hidden Hand…Familial & Ideological Ties That Bind

Exhibit C: Valerie Jarrett & Her Mischief Making: Capable of Upending Western Civilization…The Unofficial Buck Starts/Stops At Her Door

Exhibit D: DHS & America’s Planned Deconstruction Via Valerie Jarrett: Domestically & Foreign Policy-Wise…Addendum To: Barack Hussein Obama’s Deconstruction Plans

Exhibit E: Valerie Jarrett Reigns Supreme, Even Regarding The “Kill” – Or Not – Of Osama Bin Laden

To wit, Caroline Glick, a leading political/Mid East analyst expounds upon the above geo-political (still reverberating) explosions :

COLUMN ONE: A vastly changed Middle East

11/21/2013

When America returns, it will likely find a changed regional landscape; nations are disintegrating, only to reintegrate in new groupings.

US President Barack Obama.

US President Barack Obama. Photo: Reuters
A week and a half ago, Syria’s Kurds announced they are setting up an autonomous region in northeastern Syria.The announcement came after the Kurds wrested control over a chain of towns from al-Qaida in the ever metastasizing Syrian civil war.The Kurds’ announcement enraged their nominal Sunni allies – including the al-Qaida forces they have been combating – in the opposition to the Assad regime. It also rendered irrelevant US efforts to reach a peace deal between the Syrian regime and the rebel forces at a peace conference in Geneva.

But more important than what the Kurds’ action means for the viability of the Obama administration’s Syria policy, it shows just how radically the strategic landscape has changed and continues to change, not just in Syria but throughout the Arab world.The revolutionary groundswell that has beset the Arab world for the past three years has brought dynamism and uncertainty to a region that has known mainly stasis and status quo for the past 500 years. For 400 years, the Middle East was ruled by the Ottoman Turks. Anticipating the breakup of the Ottoman Empire during World War I, the British and the French quickly carved up the Ottoman possessions, dividing them between themselves. What emerged from their actions were the national borders of the Arab states – and Israel – that have remained largely intact since 1922.

As Yoel Guzansky and Erez Striem from the Institute for National Security Studies wrote in a paper published this week, while the borders of Arab states remain largely unchanged, the old borders no longer reflect the reality on the ground.“As a result of the regional upheavals, tribal, sectarian, and ethnic identities have become more pronounced than ever, which may well lead to a change in the borders drawn by the colonial powers a century ago that have since been preserved by Arab autocrats.”Guzansky and Striem explained, “The iron-fisted Arab rulers were an artificial glue of sorts, holding together different, sometimes hostile sects in an attempt to form a single nation state.

Now, the de facto changes in the Middle East map could cause far-reaching geopolitical shifts affecting alliance formations and even the global energy market.”The writers specifically discussed the breakdown of national governments and the consequent growing irrelevance of national borders in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen.And while it is true that the dissolution of central government authority is most acute in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, in every Arab state national authorities are under siege, stressed, or engaged in countering direct threats to their rule. Although central authorities retain control in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia and Bahrain, they all contend with unprecedented challenges.

As a consequence, today it is impossible to take for granted that the regime’s interests in any Arab state will necessarily direct the actions of the residents of that state, or that a regime now in power will remain in power tomorrow.Guzansky and Striem note that the current state of flux presents Israel with both challenges and opportunities. As they put it, “The disintegration of states represents at least a temporary deterioration in Israel’s strategic situation because it is attended by instability liable to trickle over into neighboring states….

But the changes also mean dissolution of the regular armies that posed a threat in the past and present opportunities for Israel to build relations with different minorities with the potential to seize the reins of government in the future.”Take the Kurds for example. The empowerment of the Kurds in Syria – as in Iraq – presents a strategic opportunity for Israel. Israel has cultivated and maintained an alliance with the Kurds throughout the region for the past 45 years.Although Kurdish politics are fraught with internal clashes and power struggles, on balance, the empowerment of the Kurds at the expense of the central governments in Damascus and Baghdad is a major gain for Israel.

And the Kurds are not the only group whose altered status since the onset of the revolutionary instability in the Arab world presents Israel with new opportunities. Among the disparate factions in the disintegrating Arab lands from North Africa to the Persian Gulf are dozens of groups that will be thrilled to receive Israeli assistance and, in return, be willing to cooperate with Israel on a whole range of issues.To be sure, these new allies are not likely to share Israeli values. And many may be no more than the foreign affairs equivalent of a one-night stand.

But Israel also is not obliged to commit itself to any party for the long haul. Transactional alliances are valuable because they are based on shared interests, and they last for as long as the actors perceive those interests as shared ones.Over the past week, we have seen a similar transformation occurring on a regional and indeed global level, as the full significance of the Obama administration’s withdrawal of US power from the region becomes better understood.When word got out two weeks ago about the US decision to accept and attempt to push through a deal with Iran that would strip the international sanctions regime of meaning in return for cosmetic Iranian concessions that will not significantly impact Iran’s completion of its nuclear weapons program, attempts were made by some Israeli and many American policy-makers to make light of the significance of President Barack Obama’s moves.

But on Sunday night, Channel 10 reported that far from an opportunistic bid to capitalize on a newfound moderation in Tehran, the draft agreement was the result of months-long secret negotiations between Obama’s consigliere Valerie Jarrett and Iranian negotiators.According to the report, which was denied by the White House, Jarrett, Obama’s Iranian-born consigliere, conducted secret talks with Iranian negotiators for the past several months.

The draft agreement that betrayed US allies throughout the Arab world, and shattered Israeli and French confidence in the US’s willingness to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, was presented to negotiators in Geneva as a fait accompli. Israel and Saudi Arabia, like other US regional allies were left in the dark about its contents. As we saw, it was only after the French and the British divulged the details of the deal to Israel and Saudi Arabia that the Israelis, Saudis and French formed an ad hoc alliance to scuttle the deal at the last moment.The revelation of Jarrett’s long-standing secret talks with the Iranians showed that the Obama administration’s decision to cut a deal with the mullahs was a well-thought-out, long-term policy to use appeasement of the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism as a means to enable the US to withdraw from the Middle East. The fact that the deal in question would also pave the way for Iran to become a nuclear power, and so imperil American national security, was clearly less of a concern for Obama and his team than realizing their goal of withdrawing the US from the Middle East.Just as ethnic, regional and religious factions wasted no time filling the vacuum created in the Arab world by the disintegration of central governments, so the states of the region and the larger global community wasted no time finding new allies to replace the United States.Voicing this new understanding, Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said Wednesday that it is time for Israel to seek out new allies.In his words, “The ties with the US are deteriorating.They have problems in North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Egypt, China, and their own financial and immigration troubles. Thus I ask – what is our place in the international arena? Israel must seek more allies with common interests.”

In seeking to block Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Israel has no lack of allies. America’s withdrawal has caused a regional realignment in which Israel and France are replacing the US as the protectors of the Sunni Arab states of the Persian Gulf.France has ample reason to act. Iran has attacked French targets repeatedly over the past 34 years. France built Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor while Saddam was at war with Iran.France has 10 million Muslim citizens who attend mosques financed by Saudi Arabia.Moreover, France has strong commercial interests in the Persian Gulf. There is no doubt that France will be directly harmed if Iran becomes a nuclear power.Although Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s meeting Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin did not bring about a realignment of Russian interests with the Franco- Sunni-Israeli anti-Iran consortium, the very fact that Netanyahu went to Moscow sent a clear message to the world community that in its dealings with outside powers, Israel no longer feels itself constrained by its alliance with the US.And that was really the main purpose of the visit. Netanyahu didn’t care that Putin rejected his position on Iran. Israel didn’t need Russia to block Jarrett’s deal.

Iran is no longer interested in even feigning interest in a nuclear deal. It was able to neutralize US power in the region, and cast the US’s regional allies into strategic disarray just by convincing Obama and Jarrett that a deal was in the offing. This is why Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei again threatened to annihilate Israel this week. He doesn’t think he needs to sugar coat his intentions any longer.

It is not that the US has become a nonentity in the region overnight, and despite Obama’s ill-will toward Israel, under his leadership the US has not become a wholly negative actor. The successful Israeli-US test of the David’s Sling short-range ballistic missile interceptor on Wednesday was a clear indication of the prevailing importance of Israel’s ties with the US. So, too, the delivery this week of the first of four US fast missile boats to the Egyptian navy, which will improve Egypt’s ability to secure maritime traffic in the Suez Canal, showed that the US remains a key player in the region. Congress’s unwillingness to bow to Obama’s will and weaken sanctions on Iran similarly is a positive portent for a post-Obama American return to the region.

But when America returns, it will likely find a vastly changed regional landscape. Nations are disintegrating, only to reintegrate in new groupings.

Monolithic regimes are giving way to domestic fissures and generational changes. As for America’s allies, some will welcome its return.

Others will scowl and turn away. All will have managed to survive, and even thrive in the absence of a guiding hand from Washington, and all will consequently need America less.

This changed landscape will in turn require the US to do some long, hard thinking about where its interests lie, and to develop new strategies for advancing them.

So perhaps in the fullness of time, we may all end up better off for this break in US strategic rationality.

Rest assured, if not for all of the above, the civilized world would not be facing the most frightening reality of all: the world’s most dangerous weapons in the hands of the most dangerous regime, bar none. And this is exactly what Jarrett & Obama have signed onto, in the expectation that PM Netanyahu’s hands will remain tied. Beyond traitors, reprobates and bastards. WAY beyond.

Sober thinking John Bolton coined it thusly:

The Obama administration feared an Israeli airstrike on Iran more than it feared Iran building a nuclear weapon, and that’s why it pushed for a deal to reduce sanctions against Iran, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton writes in The Weekly Standard

“Buying time for its own sake makes sense in some negotiating contexts, but the sub silentio objective here was to jerry-rig yet another argument to wield against Israel and its fateful decision whether or not to strike Iran,” Bolton writes. “Obama, fearing that strike more than an Iranian nuclear weapon, clearly needed greater international pressure on Jerusalem.”

Family Security Matters also weighed in:

The canary in the diplomatic coal mine, however, is this report, that the US had been secretly negotiating since March 2013 with Iran–(a) without telling its mortally-endangered ally, Israel until two months ago (seven months into the talks); and (b) negotiating (for one of the five meetings) with Rouhani’s predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

As Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeldfrom the American Center For Democracy, succinctly posited: 

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s handshake with the Iranian foreign minister effectively wiped off the blood from the hands of the Iranian leadership — the U.S.’s unrepentant sworn enemy — that murdered hundreds of thousands of people directly and by its worldwide terror network. Instead of punishment, Obama through his emissary Kerry, rewarded the murderers of hundreds Americans, 150-200,000 Syrians, and thousands more elsewhere with freedom and funds to build the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.  

Moreover, Kerry’s handshake with Zarif legitimized the mullahs oppressive theocracy and put an end to the hope of regime change. It ensured Iran’s development of nuclear weapons with which it will try to attack Israel, as well as the Arab nations in the Middle East.

Is this handshake not reminiscent of PM Rabin’s bloody-handed clasp with “Chairman” Arafaton that infamous day of September 13, 1993? Think about it. Thousands of Jewish “sacrifices for peace”  – First of all you need to remember, that it is your own esteemed, delusionary elder-statesman, Israeli President Shimon Peres, who coined the infamous phrase ‘korbanot ha-shalom’ – sacrifices for peace – during the first intifada unleashed by his ‘peace-partner’, Yasser Arafat. As the Land of Israel was drowning in the bloody carnage of suicide bombings, road-side shootings and hidden explosives, he needed to justify the fallacy of his misguided vision and the deplorable kowtowing to the arch enemy – litter Israel’s graveyards and many more are maimed for life. Just ramp up to the highest order of magnitude, how many more will eventually die on the altar of the bloody handshake between Kerry and Zarif! More than a day in infamy…

NO doubt, Israel: The Most Imperiled/Targeted Nation In History. What Are Its Options, Now That Its Leaders Left Zion’s Fate To U.S. Dictates? 

As such, let the countdown to an Israeli strike begin….as mentioned by Israel’s Foreign Minster: 

Hinting at the possibility of military action, the foreign minister said “we will do what we must and will not hesitate for one minute – and there is no need to add another word.”

Forward march…kadima…צעדה קדימה !!

Obama Acts As ARSONIST & FIREFIGHTER: Doing “Business” With Rogue Regimes & Covering Tracks Too…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Geo-politics, as stated enumerable times, is akin to a hotter than hot chessboard of rapidly moving and evolving puzzle parts. Getting burnt is not unusual, but being scorched from ones trusted allies, well, that rises to a stratospheric level of betrayal. Never to be forgiven or forgotten. Caroline Glick says it best in her weekly column at the Jerusalem Post, and this should elicit more than deliberate pause: COLUMN ONE: The demise of Pax Americana, 11/14/2013. Heed her warnings well.

So at the same time that Obama and gang sold America’s assets to China (and others); implanted Russian troops on U.S. soil and Chinese forces too; plus aided Iran to the WMD finish line, they still ! have the audacity to become hysterical about Snowden’s revelations. In actuality, he is merely outing their machinations. Pot…kettle.

In reality, it was Snowden’s cache which demonstrated the many methods in which Obama Inc. betrayed its allies and its own citizens, as opposed to where their focus should have been, to wit, on enemy states. Thereby, it was through their own actions that shrill “shout outs” and alerts to foreign intelligence services were necessitated from the get go. Cause and effect. Topsy turvy too.

This criminal regime’s authentic goals are succinctly summed up within NSA Caught Dead to RightsBut, it still begs the specific question: The Snowden Affair and NSA’s Outing – What Is Obama Inc. Really Afraid Of? 

Even more so, Aside From Obama’s Goons Domestic Spying, why are they after the kiddies? To Bring Down America, that’s why. Yet, not content with leaving any semblance of America intact, they jump to another ! betrayal via The Purging Of Islam + Terror And Its Evisceration Of NSA’s Spying. If your head isn’t already spinning, what the hell else are they up to? Ahh…a dissident’s list !

Leading straight to their oh so concerned missives…

US alerts foreign intelligence services on Snowden’s disclosures

DEBKAfile October 2013

The 30,000 documents taken by whistleblower Edward Snowden contains secret data about foreign agencies’ cooperation with the US in collection programs against targets, including Iran, Russia and China. Those documents if disclosed could compromise operations and agents.The Washington Post reports that US officials are sending out alerts to some foreign intelligence services. This process is delicate at a time that Washington is scrambling to placate allies, after disclosures by Snowden that the NSA spied on foreign leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
DEBKAfile: The US alerts are warning allied agencies to immediately recall secret agents from current intelligence operations because their cover may be blown.

Par for the course, when inveterate, unrepentant liars and reprobates are caught with their pants down, any and all cover ups become “legitimate” tools. One only has to dig through Benghazigate’s mountain of falsehoods and tall tales (as just one example out of too many others) to recognize what’s what. 

Even with the following Indictments making the rounds, Obama and gang refuse to ‘fess up and take responsibility for American deaths in Libya. The attendant assists they gave to jihadis, through their weapons running from Libya into Syria and beyond, has yet to reach its full peak. 

Consider: Benghazigate’s linkage/nexus to Morsi’s Mafia and Obama’s half bro’, Malik Obama, has come to the fore, so the fact of the matter is that Egypt’s Brotherhood, its proxy jihadis and the “Blind Sheik’s” release are all interconnected with Obama’s thrust into Libya! One has to wonder: aren’t they ALREADY caught with their pants down, Snowden beside the point?

Intrinsically, there is a growing, burgeoning case for Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s impeachment, as the arming of Al Qaeda and its affiliated terror groups more than rises to said indictment! And it is not as if some in Congress aren’t taking notice. They are. Indeed, impeachable offenses are reverberating on Capitol Hill. Faster…faster…

The Betrayer/Arsonist-in-Chief (and surrogates) has much to atone for. As a result, it is way “too little too late” to feign angst over allied intelligence agents. Let them save their crocodile/fake tears for those who buy their treachery.

Indeed, cozying up to enemies already extracted the blood of SEALS via many insurmountable, monumental costs. The piper is coming due. And IF the American people hold them accountable, it will be Obama and gang who will pay the ultimate price instead of America’s citizens. Hang tight.

Arsonist(s) acting as firefighter(s)….damn him/them to hell.

Israel’s Political Leaders (Via Releasing Terrorists/Murderers & So Much More) Betray Zionist Public: Beholden To The “Gang Of The Rule Of Law”. Professor Paul Eidelberg Elucidates

WITH the ongoing “peace” train chugging apace, much has been written about the seemingly “inexplicable”, counter intuitive behavior of Israel’s leaders, particularly regarding their bowing, scraping and appeasing of foreign players who wish the Jewish homeland ill will. Yes, they do, regardless of their sweet nothings. In fact, what kind of “friends” demand that terrorists/murderers be set free, as a condition for “peace” to spring forth? More to the point, what type of “peace” partners MAKE such demands in the first place? As to Israel’s leaders agreeing to such insanity, well, therein necessitates the commentary. The national tragedy.

Time and again, Israel’s leadership outdo themselves through their mendacious (actionable) behaviorbecoming “legal” outlaws in the process – Nullum Crimen Sine Poena: No Crime Without Punishment. A partial listing of recent terrorists/murderers released by PM Netanyahu cries out for Jewish justice – from Israel’s derelict and craven leadership! So much so, stalwart Zionists can’t help but take them to task and upbraid them publicly. To assert that this is a painstaking, depressing and degrading task, well, is to underestimate the gravity of the situation. The “matzav”.

But before we assess the heart of the matter – to garner a clear understanding of how Israel got from there to here – it is worth reviewing some content for contextual heft. Let us now do so, mainly through Israel’s ship of fools and Confronting Israel’s Precarious Future: An Interview With Dr. Martin Sherman.

Onto the (putrid) meat….

The Reported but Ignored Conspiracy of Israel’s Government:

Ariel Sharon, The Role Model of Benjamin Netanyahu

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Prologue. The time: June 21, 2005. Imagine [then] Prime Minister Ariel Sharon scanning the Jerusalem Post during a trip to Washington. He knows the Post is about the only Israeli newspaper read by American officials. He sees the weekly article penned by the Post’s most respected political analyst, Caroline Glick. Her article is dated June 21, 2005, just a few weeks before Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. The article is entitled:

A coward for a prime minister”

 The longest chapter in Machiavelli’s The Prince is on conspiracy. A profound but unreported conspiracy was perpetrated in Israel ten years ago. Strange as it may seem, details of the conspiracy were publicized by [former] Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin in a wide-ranging interview of Ariel Sharon by journalist Ari Shavit and published in the June 5, 2003 issue of Ha’aretz Magazine.[1] The interview contains unprecedented and startling revelations. Indeed, Mr. Rivlin exposed what may arguably be called a criminal conspiracy of Israel’s entire Political and Judicial Establishment! What is more, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu current endorsement of a Palestinian state is the consummation of this conspiracy!

Part I. Introduction to the Rivlin Revelations

Ari Shavit entitled his June 5, 2003 interview of Speaker Rivlin “Courting Disaster,” à propos of the policy of territorial retreat or “disengagement” adopted by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. This policy necessitated a legal or judicial foundation. Abandoning Gaza required the forced expulsion of 8,000 Jews from their homes. Since this involved a basic issue of law, it required the cooperation or collaboration of Israel’s Supreme Court.

Shavit’s interview of Rivlin tells the unvarnished story. Speaker Rivlin not only had much to say about Ariel Sharon’s character, but also about the mentality of Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak. Sharon needed Judge Barak to “legalize” Israel’s Gaza withdrawal, which amounted to a Jewish cleansing policy. Stated more precisely, Sharon needed Judge Barak’s judicial cooperation because the forced expulsion of Jews from their homes in Gaza was clearly a violation of their property rights, indeed, of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom of which Barak was the principal author!

To legalize the expulsion, the Barak Court simply held that Gaza (as well as Judea and Samaria) are “belligerent occupied territory” to which the Basic Law in question does not apply. But what gave the Supreme Court the authority to designate Gaza “belligerent occupied territory” and ignore that Basic Law?  No such judicial power was granted to the Court by any legislation of the Knesset. Chief Justice Barak simply proclaimed the unprecedented dictum that “everything is justiciable,” a dictum that gave the Court virtually unlimited power. This and more is spelled out in the Rivlin interview of June 5, 2003.

Before examining this extraordinary aspect of the Rivlin interview, the fact that political scientists virtually ignored the revolutionary implications of Barak’s dictum suggests they were either suffering from a cerebral vacuity or that most were reluctant to publicly denounce Sharon’s adoption of Labor’s disengagement policy, even though this policy had been opposed by Israel’s highest military and intelligence officials in public testimony before the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee!

However, rather than impugn the intelligence and patriotism of the political science fraternity, let us exercise our intellects and perhaps amuse ourselves by exploring the more interesting scenario of a publicized but ignored conspiracy, even though it may be nothing more than a case of political cowardice and stupidity, characteristics often attributed to Israel’s government and its advisors. We don’t want to be confused with conspiracy addicts.

Accordingly, to clear the ground for a serious and scholarly inquiry, I shall cite the most relevant parts of Mr. Rivlin’s June 5, 2003 Ha’aretz interview and let the reader himself answer the accusatory question, “What’s going on here in Israel?” I hasten to add that the Rivlin interview is by no means dated, for Israel’s current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is following the Sharon-Barak legacy so candidly exposed by the Knesset Speaker.

Part II. The Rivlin Revelations

Of its many fascinating revelations, most significant are those involving the character of Israel’s ruling elites and the authenticity of Israeli democracy.  Only two need concern us:

  • Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was a “closet leftist,” and
  • Chief Justice Aharon Barak’s dictum that “everything is justiciable” was nothing less than a “putsch,” a coup d’état.”[2]

It was precisely the Barak dictum that “everything is justiciable” that allowed the Court to “legalize” the government’s “unilateral disengagement” policy and the consequent expulsion of Jews from Gaza. This dictum, which virtually transformed Israel into a judicial dictatorship, violates the democratic orientation of the prophets of Israel, who were the primary defenders of the rights of the Jewish people vis-à-vis their government.

For the sake of clarity, I will divide Rivlin’s far-ranging interview into sections and inject only a few explanatory remarks.

Ari Shavit’s Interview of Speaker Rivlin

Shavit asks Rivlin: “Is [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon tormented by his personal responsibility for the establishment of the settlements and the need to deal with his mistakes?”

Rivlin: “Whereas in the personal realm Sharon is a very sensitive person whose eyes often grow moist, in the national realm he is entirely without emotions. He has no inhibitions. He is a Mapainik without inhibitions, referring to the Mapai party, the precursor of Labor, which was known for its rampant [left-wing (PE)] pragmatism. When he forms an opinion, nothing will stop him. No sentiment and no human commitment will hold him back.”

“Rivlin himself,” Shavit continues, “is agitated and of two minds about the Sharonist shift. In the room of the Jerusalem hotel in which we meet, his voice cracks and his eyes shine as he talks about the shattered dream of the ‘national camp’ and the loss of the Land of Israel. Even though he understands the logic that is guiding his political patron, Prime Minister [Sharon], he is not willing to accept it. He, Reuven Rivlin, will never lift a finger to hand over the Land of Israel. Even if he remains utterly alone, he will prefer to show allegiance to the lost ideal of Ze’ev Jabotinsky and Menachem Begin and to the integrity of the homeland. It is only after some time … that he begins to speak with the same fervor about the subject we are here to discuss: theconstitutional revolution, Supreme Court President Aharon Barak and the threat posed to democracy precisely by the Israeli establishments. The speaker of the Knesset does not mince his words. He talks bluntly and directly about the things that are disturbing him and making him lose sleep [emphasis added (PE)].”

B. The Relationship between Rivlin and Sharon

Shavit: “Ruby Rivlin, you are very close to Sharon. You hold intimate conversations with him. Where is he taking us?”

Rivlin: “Arik is trying to achieve a solution that will put him into the history books as a person who fomented a historical turning point – like Ben-Gurion in 1947, Begin in 1979 and Yitzhak Rabin in 1993. But Arik also understands in the clearest way possible that he cannot achieve a permanent settlement that will satisfy the Arabs. He understands that no one on the Arab side will agree to forgo the areas that he regards as essential for the defense of the State of Israel.

“I refer mainly to areas in the Jordan Rift Valley and to the strip running from Arad to Jerusalem, in the Dead Sea region. Arik is therefore aiming for a temporary settlement. But the temporary settlement he has in mind is far-reaching. He truly intends the establishment of a Palestinian state with territorial contiguity and a true separation between us and 3.5 million Palestinians.”

Shavit: “Are you saying that the moderate Sharon we have seen … is the real Sharon?”

Rivlin: “Undoubtedly. Whether I like it or not, the moderate Arik is authentic. Look, sometimes he zigzags. Sometimes he says things ambivalently, which can be interpreted either way. But to my chagrin, he has passed the point of no return. I can tell you and your readers with certainty that Arik Sharon is resolute in his position that a settlement has to be reached immediately. When he talks about the end of the occupation and about painful concessions, he is not pulling a fast one and he is not lying – unfortunately.”

Shavit: “When did you grasp that this is it, that he crossed the Rubicon?”

Rivlin: “In October. One night he called me into his office and showed me the road map and asked me for my comments. At that moment I understood that we were approaching the moment of truth. That he’s really going for it.”

Shavit: “So deep down he really has remained a Mapainik?”

Rivlin: “Without a doubt. In the end, Arik believes in security above all and is a salient pragmatist, a disciple of Ben-Gurion….

“Look, Arik Sharon has a doctrine of life that is far more coherent than what journalists give him credit for. It’s true that in the past he moved from one place to another. I myself was critical of him for changing certain positions for political purposes. But people here didn’t understand that from the day he assumed the post of prime minister, his security and political outlook was very crystallized.

“He didn’t know, and he still doesn’t know, how to reach a permanent settlement, but he is determined to recognize a Palestinian state and reach a settlement. Think about the fact that when he says the occupation is hard for the people of Israel he is really saying that the occupation corrupts. That we have the right to the land but that we can’t realize it. In this, he is actually accepting the ideology of the left.”

Shavit: “So the person who heads the Likud today is really a Ben-Gurionist?”

Rivlin: “Arik is definitely a Ben-Gurionist. In our conversations, he laughs and calls me the ideologue, and I laugh and call him [Ben-Gurion’s] disciple. But there’s nothing funny about it. It’s completely true. And for me it’s rough, because since October I have been wracked by an inner conflict between my uncompromising belief that all of Zion is ours, and my close friendship with the prime minister. That’s why, when he offered me a cabinet post in his government, I preferred to become Speaker of the Knesset. I told him openly: Arik, we are now on an irreversible collision course. You are a disciple of Ben-Gurion and I am a disciple of Jabotinsky. You are a pragmatist and I cannot free myself of my belief. I will not convert my religion, I told him. I have no intention of converting.”

C. Historic Earthquake

Shavit: “Let’s get back to him. If he is truly serious, as you describe it, there will be a settlement within half a year to a year. That’s not just talk. There will really be a historic earthquake here.

Rivlin: “For many months I’ve been telling my journalist friends that an earthquake is happening. Arik Sharon is serious about the words he is speaking. And the moment you embark on that road, there is no knowing where it will lead, because once a sacrosanct principle is shattered, anything goes. The process is very powerful.”

Shavit: “Give me a scenario. What’s going to happen?”

Rivlin: “There is one thing on which Arik will make no concessions: terrorism. On this subject Arik has no doubts and everyone can trust him, including Likudniks. If there is terrorism, he will not hand over territory. [More Jews were murdered by Arab terrorists during Sharon’s reign than under that of any other prime minister. (PE)]. But if we actually reach a situation in which a solution is found for terrorism, and there are signs that the Palestinians are trying to meet us halfway, he will establish a Palestinian state in the territories held by the Palestinians with territorial contiguity, which could be very significant from the point of view of the Israeli government’s attitude toward the sacred principle of non-evacuation of settlements.”

Shavit: “Are you saying that Sharon will evacuate settlements already in the stage of the establishment of the temporary Palestinian state?”

Rivlin: “It is definitely possible that an impossible friction between certain settlements and the need for a situation in which the Arabs will not pass through our territory and in which we will not rub shoulders with them – that this will thrust him into a situation in which he will make an Arik-style decision that it’s possible that settlements will have to be evacuated.”

Shavit: “I ask again, Ruby Rivlin: Has Arik Sharon accepted the fact that he will evacuate settlements?”

Rivlin: “What he has accepted is that for us to live within borders that make movement possible for them other than through our territory, it will be necessary to reach a decision to evacuate a number of settlements.”

Shavit: “How many settlements are we talking about?”

Rivlin: “When Arik assumed the office of prime minister, and even earlier, in discussions he held with [former prime minister] Ehud Barak, about 17 settlements [in this category] were identified.”

Shavit: “When Sharon mentions painful concessions, is he referring to these 17 settlements?”

Rivlin: “He sees them above all. Arik has made clear and explained a number of times that their evacuation is necessary in order to stabilize some sort of way in which we will be able to reach some sort of settlement. Today we have cantons. Those cantons will be unified and connected. Connecting the cantons will necessitate this blow to the settlement project. It obliges the evacuation of about 17 settlements.”

Shavit: “Are you telling me that Sharon has reconciled himself to the fact that he will evacuate 17 settlements already at the state of the interim agreement?”

Rivlin: “Yes. When he talks about painful concessions, he is talking about a concrete map that some of the Yesha people [referring to the Yesha council of Jewish settlements in the territories (brackets in original] know about and that he has already talked to them about.”

Shavit: “And does Sharon believe that an evacuation on that scale will bring about calm and conciliation?”

Rivlin: “Sharon thinks that it’s necessary to build some sort of relations of trust. Even though, knowing Sharon as I do, I don’t see him placing any trust in the Arab side” (Italics added PE).

Shavit: Not even in Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas]?

Rivlin: “Not even in Abu Mazen.”

Shavit: “So there is a basic problem in placing trust in the Arabs?”

Rivlin: “He has no trust in them (italics PE). Arik doesn’t like them much because he doesn’t believe them. But Arik knows that negotiations are not conducted only with people you believe. Negotiations are conducted in order to solve problems [!?! (PE)]. Look, Arik does not view the Arabs from a position of superiority. He sees the Arabs as people to whom we owe nothing. We owe nothing to anyone who wants to attack and kill us. That side of the issue is of no interest to him. So when he talks about 3.5 million Palestinians, it is not because of their suffering, but because he has reached the conclusion that to go on ruling them is impractical.”

Shavit: “Will he evacuate Netzarim [an isolated settlement in the Gaza Strip]?” (Bracket in original.)

Rivlin: “Arik is ready to pay the price in places where it is necessary to guarantee the Palestinians continuity. There is no such problem at Netzarim. At Netzarim, the problem is that of Netzarim, not of the Palestinians. Therefore he is more accepting of the need to evacuate [settlements] in the Binyamin region than in the Gaza Strip. But the American pressure in the direction of the Gaza District is very heavy” (brackets in original).

Shavit: “And what about the permanent settlement? Will he not forgo the Jordan Rift Valley and the Gaza Strip and the strip between Arad and Jerusalem even as part of a final peace agreement?”

Rivlon: “In my opinion, he will be more adamant on that than on the question of Jerusalem. That is his casus belli. As far as I know Arik, he will not compromise on that issue. To him, these are territories without which it is impossible to defend Israel. But a situation is liable to develop in which the decision about them will not be his to make” (italics PE).

D. New Sounds about Jerusalem

Shavit: “Is it possible that Sharon will also compromise on Jerusalem?”

Rivlin: “I don’t want to believe that. Arik is suffused with a mystical belief about Jerusalem. But when you embark on the road, you will be asked – Will you now ruin everything just because of Jerusalem? I have a musical ear. In one of his recent speeches I heard new sounds about Jerusalem. They worried me.”

Shavit: “So what you fear is that the process will pull him in further than what he himself supposes?”

Rivlin: “When you embark on a trans-Atlantic flight and the pilot informs you that you have crossed the ocean, you can no longer go back to Europe, you have to land in North America. That is Arik’s situation today, without a doubt. Politically, too. He took the risk knowingly and willingly, and he knows he will have no choice but to land on the other side….”

Shavit: “Is it your assessment that the very course Sharon has embarked on will in the end lead to the 1967 borders or something approximating them?”

Rivlin: “That’s more than an apprehension. That’s a clear scenario. Unequivocally (emphasis added (PE). Because once we live in a global village and the American sheriff is the sheriff of the whole world, you can be the world’s greatest ideologue, but you have to take account of the political situation. And from the moment a crack appears in your belief, the crack gets wider and wider. You get into a state of mind that is not amenable to change [emphasis added (PE)].

What Arik is now doing is causing the national movement to largely shed its basic tenets. Even principles that Arik promised me he would uphold just a few months ago have been eroded. We are entering a process here that does not make conditional the end of one stage before the transition to the next stage. We have already recognized the Palestinians’ right to a state and we are talking about the Saudi plan and the right of return. It’s all up for grabs. So it’s clear that even if there are things that Arik really will not forgo, his successor will continue what he began.” …

 [E] Aharon Barak

 Shavit: “Ruby Rivlin, your attack on the Supreme Court was unprecedented. What brought it on? Why do you perceive the court as being so dangerous?”

Rivlin: “In 1992 I was a member of the [Knesset’s] Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, which formulated and passed the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Freedom. So I know what the idea behind that law was. The idea was to consolidate the rights of people insofar as they are people and the rights of the minority insofar as it is a minority. Under no circumstances was the idea to transfer legislative authority from the Knesset to another body. No one even talked about changing the balance of power between the Knesset and the court (emphasis PE).

“So a few months later, when Dan Meridor declared that a constitutional revolution had taken place, I was stunned. Dan Meridor is one of the followers of Justice Barak [Aharon Barak, the president of the Supreme Court]. Follower is a nice word. I don’t want to use a different word, heaven forbid. But unlike him, I thought – like several former Supreme Court presidents – that there had been no constitutional revolution here. No such thing.

Yet as time passed and the court moved ahead with great deliberation and by creeping annexation took over more and more powers, I realized that not only had there been a constitutional revolution, there had been a coup d’état. (emphasis added (PE). [Rivlin continuing:]I do not accept this revolution. In my view, the Knesset never approved it and therefore it is taking place contrary to the democratic spirit and without authorization.”

Shavit: “‘Coup d’état’ is a serious term to use in this context; it means a putsch” (emphasis PE).

Rivlin: “Correct. And that is the term I used at the President’s Residence last month. Supreme Court President Barak was very hurt by the expression, but in my opinion, when a group of people sit in a room and say that from this moment we are the power, that is a putsch. You tell me: Isn’t it a putsch? It’s a putsch. After all, they did not receive authorization from anyone. They did not consult with anyone. They created a situation of going ahead and seizing power.”

Shavit: “Do you see this as the imposition of a particular worldview on the public by means of an improper procedure? Do you see a move to establish a kind of enlightened absolutism?”

Rivlin: “Yes. It’s as clear as day. Aharon Barak says that we have to distinguish between the Knesset as framing and the Knesset as legislating. He says that if you don’t frame a constitution, I will set forth a constitution instead of you. But who gave him the right? Who gave him the right?”

Shavit: “What you are actually saying, then, is that the whole constitutional move that Justice Barak led in the past decade is illegitimate?”

Rivlin: “Of course. On the basis of the false claim of a constitutional revolution, a new reality was created here. A new government was forged that is above everyone: both above the Knesset and above the government and above the law, too. Take note that the court has effectively placed itself above the law….”

F.  Threat to Democracy

Shavit: “Do you really believe that the court is operating contrary to the democratic spirit and contrary to the values of democracy?”

Rivlin: “Without a doubt. The court is disrupting the whole order of government. I will give you an … example. On the issue of the Landau report [a 1987 report about the Shin Bet security service’s interrogation methods, drawn up by a commission headed by Justice Moshe Landau, a former president of the Supreme Court], Aharon Barak comes and says, Look, even if all 120 members of the Knesset tell me that in the case of a human ‘ticking bomb,’ moderate physical pressure can be used [as the Landau Commission recommended in certain interrogations], I will strike it down. In other words, Barak is placing himself above 120 legislators. He says, If I think it’s wrong, I don’t care what the Knesset thinks ….

Shavit: “Still, why now? What decisions by the court made you react so harshly?”

Rivlin: “There was of course the ruling by a Magistrate’s Court that brought the process ad absurdum. When a junior judge allows himself to invalidate a law of the Knesset, you realize that we have reached a state of total madness. But in my opinion what was even more serious was the decision by the High Court of Justice on the question of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem [when armed Palestinians took refuge there during Operation Defensive Shield in May, 2002 (brackets in original).

“The very fact that the court did not kick out the petitioners and agreed to get into a discussion about the conduct of war policy in wartime proved to me that the court is now placing itself above the government, too. Because the moment the court starts weighing the considerations of the government in matters about which only the government can decide and for which it alone bears responsibility, it’s all over. The court has actually turned itself into a meta-government.

“Therefore, I reached the conclusion that someone had to tell His Honor Justice Barak that there is a limit. Someone had to tell him, It’s not your affair. It’s the affair of the government.”

Shavit: “Do you seriously intend to curb the power of the court by means of legislation?”

Rivlin: “Definitely. It has to be done. We are talking about a burning problem. We are talking about a situation in which they are already talking about a requiem for the law, about how the judge overcame the law. And we are talking about a situation in which the judicial system is endangering the democratic system in Israel because its people are sure that they are better than others. What’s going on here, after all? Effectively there is no longer any law here because the law changes every minute according to the interpretation of the court based on some sort of meta-norm that has never been defined, so no one knows what it is. The result is a situation in which a very small group of people has arrogated to itself the authority to decide values and rules and even policy for a whole country and for a whole public that never gave them any such authorization.”….

Therefore I tell you that they are a gang …. A gang like any other gang. Except that the name of this gang is the gang of the rule of law” (emphasis PE).

 

[1] For the full text, see IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis Website: www.imra.org.il.

[2] This dictum effectively nullified Israel’s Penal Law governing treason, since it enabled the Court to legalize the yielding of Jewish land contrary to the Penal Law governing treason, which law defines four kinds of acts as treason:

1.  acts which “impair the sovereignty” of  the  State of Israel—section 97(a);

2.  acts which “impair the integrity” of the  State of Israel—section 97(b);

3.  acts under section 99 which give assistance to an “enemy” in war against Israel, which the Law specifically states includes a terrorist organization;

4.  acts in section 100 which evince an intention or resolve to commit one of the acts prohibited by sections 97 and 99.

The Ever Elusive Quest: Chasing Palestinian-Israeli “Peace” Illusions/Delusions…What Can Israeli Zionists Do To Stop It…DEAD In Its Tracks? Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

For the umpteenth time the world is transfixed by the “peace process.” One needn’t even identify the referenced nations, for their identities are (purposefully) seared within the world’s consciousness. It is as if there are no other warring parties in the world. And via a mesmerizing illusion – simply dependent upon mixing this and that potion – this time “peace” will be in the offing between PA Arabs and Israel.

The so called “smarties” behave, and religiously believe, as if by their sheer force of momentum “peace” will break through, but only if they just push Israel a little harder! Thus, if they exert enough pressure points upon Israel’s leadership (read, twist enough arms…paradoxically not a hard feat at all) somehow – this go around – they will be able to conjure up an agreeable formula, one in which the elusive “peace” wand will magically appear. As such, poof, its ingredients will usher in the ever elusive pipe dream. Alas – and herein lies the caveat – this wondrous breakthrough will only come to pass if enough Israeli concessions, gestures and giveaways are sacrificed upon the (‘peace’) table, and Israel’s “true believers”, leftists, are more than willing to ante up. Please. Been there. Done that. Israel’s graves are full to the brim with said “sacrifices.”  Its hospital rehabilitation wards too.

Now, it is one thing for the world’s busybodies to engage in the “business of peace”, however, very few pundits talk about the insanity of Israel’s leaders participating in this dangerous and deadly charade. Yes, Israel is not an island onto itself. And, indeed, its leaders are under enormous international pressure (mostly from Washington) to give “peace a chance.”  However, one would think – and rightfully so – that being burnt, almost to a crisp (with thousands of Jewish graves, and many more maimed for life due to the “process”, thereby, proving its insanity) would disabuse them of participating any longer in this hideous march of madness. IF only.

So, the million dollar question becomes: Why do Israel’s leaders continually place their citizens in jeopardy, even as their so called “peace partners” continually exhort for their nation’s destruction, concomitantly, preparing generations of children for murderous jihad?

According to pre-eminent political scientist Professor Paul Eidelberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Eidelberg, an American-Israeli PhD from the University of Chicago) “It needs to be understood and emphasized that anyone, regardless of his subjective ideas or feelings, who supports the creation of an Arab-Islamic state in Judea and Samaria is OBJECTIVELY advocating Israel’s destruction. This applies even to an Israeli Prime Minister!

In support of this provocative statement, I offer certain demonstrable facts which indicate there is not a stitch of evidence that contradicts the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to destroy Israel.

This commitment, which is rooted in Islamic theology, is proclaimed in the PLO-Palestinian Charter. Any honest or decent human can read in that Charter their murderous hatred of Jews and Israel. This hatred permeates Palestinian propaganda. It is manifested in the education and military training of Arab children. This ghoulish hatred promises a continuation of the 20 years of Oslo terror that has murdered and maimed 15,000 Jewish women, men, and children…….”

Moreover, many of the heretofore inexplicable answers can be found within a recent interview given by this writer at Inquisitr.com. But in the main, the root of Israel’s folly can be found in the incestuous relationship between its political leaders and its civil society elites. According to Dr. Martin Sherman, Founder of Israel Institute For Strategic Studies “Through their un-elected positions of influence and authority, civil society elites shape the political discourse and hence the perceived constraints on decision-makers…a trinity of interacting civil society elites, comprising groups and individuals who dominate the legal establishment, the mainstream media and much of the nation’s academia – particularly, but not exclusively, in the social sciences and humanities, including law.

These elites, through their unelected positions of influence and authority that their professions confer on them, can to a large measure shape the content and the conduct of the political discourse in the country, and hence the constraints that decision makers perceive themselves to be subject to.

This clearly provides them the capacity to have a dominant impact on the formulation of national policy and to impose their overarching worldview on the elected incumbents, no matter what the latter’s political manifesto or electoral pledges to the voters may be…”

Average Israeli citizens (secular and religious Zionists alike) are scratching/banging their heads, hoping to come up with a ‘plan of action’ – to stop the ‘process’ dead in its tracks. A still birth. So, it is only appropriate to offer up to fellow Zionists some ‘marching orders’, not conjured up via this American-Israeli, but by, none other than, her mentor, Professor Louis Rene Beres – 

Surrendering Judea and Samaria (“West Bank”) in the context of civil disobedience, Jewish law, and the Middle East Peace Process.…..

Sometimes, tragedy and irony may arrive together. Now that it is reportedly back “on track,” the so-called Middle East Peace Process threatens Israel with additional dismemberment, and eventual disappearance.

Aware of these intolerable prospects, thousands of Israelis who are opposed to any further existential surrenders may soon prepare for an appropriate response to “Palestine.” Whatever its particular shape and expression, this “post-peace” response to a new Arab state, one that would be carved out of Israel’s own still-living body, may take some recognizable form of civil disobedience.

To be sure, the Netanyahu Government, inexplicably confident in Palestinian compliance with pre-state agreements on “demilitarization,” will object strongly to any such tactics. Nonetheless, civil disobedience has a long and distinguished tradition in jurisprudence and democratic theory.  In part, as the following argument will make clear, certain roots of this tradition actually lie in Jewish Law.

From its  beginnings, Jewish law has been viewed as a manifestation of God’s will.  Biblically, the law is referred to as the “word of God,” never of humankind.  God, therefore, is the sole authentic legislator, and righteousness necessarily lies in observance of His law.  Moreover, for ancient Israel as well as for the ancient Greeks, the absence of righteousness is expected to place at risk the lives and fortunes of the entire community……

YET, many legitimate questions still arise as to why a leader, such as PM Netanyahu, who was groomed within the national Zionist camp, would even advocate for a “two-state solution.”  A very incisive analysis was penned by Caroline Glick – Bibi and the true believers. Dr. Martin Sherman’s latest J Post column tops the charts, Resign, just resign! Clearly, these analyses are very depressing, but no less necessary. In fact, Dr. Sherman’s recent interview at Inquistr.com, Confronting Israel’s Precarious Future: An Interview With Dr. Martin Sherman: Part One demonstrates precisely how Israel’s leaders, via the “peace process”, have evinced a grave dereliction of duty, thereby, placing the nation of Israel in a position of mortal peril. 

All of the above are must reads, if you truly want to understand how/why Israel’s leadership have brought Israel to the brink of disaster.

Moreover, the answers within some of the questions also lie inside a previous op-ed (written by yours truly) at American Thinker, “The Paradox of Israeli Politics: Vote Right, Get Left.”

Basically, there is a colossal tug of war between Israel’s civil society elites – chiefly hailing from academia, media, legal, cultural and diplomatic circles – and the non-existent electoral responsibility between MK’s (Parlimentarians) and the Zionist public, whose votes actually reflect the will of majority public. In this regard, Israel’s political leadership are held captive to those who have the largest megaphones and pocketbooks. Surely, this does not include the average citizen and their political will, in large part due to Israel’s gravely dysfunctional political system.

To wit, Israel’s President (a figurehead/ceremonial post to begin with, and its office is not endowed with policy making decisions), Shimon Peres, is still trotting around the world (a real feat of magic, being that he is past 90!) and selling “peace dreams.”  He infamously intoned that “sacrifices for peace” – alluding to the dead and maimed – are necessary to reach a historic accord! Hmm.

Well, I am not sure about world onlookers, but those who were “sacrificed” – as well as their surviving family members and friends – would beg to differ.

But, then again, President Peres and the perennial “peace chasers” are still open for business! So, they must know better, acutely emblematic within:

State fights for court to uphold prisoner release, despite terror victims’ group petition

08/07/2013
“The state files request in response to recent Almagor petition to block mid-August prisoner release; argues gov’t believes prisoner release gives Israel potential for improving security situation……”

At its bare base, Israel’s leadership truly believes that releasing bloody-handed Jew-killers (though their hearts are aching…blah, blah) will IMPROVE the nation’s security! Can you see with whom we are dealing…on the one hand lies our enemies, on the other stands our Oslo-driven mentally besieged leadership. NOTHING good will come of this – at least for Israel’s (and diaspora’s) Zionists.

G-D, SAVE US FROM OUR FANTASISTS!!