"Clearly, the Arab rage in France originates in the lack of independence in Mayotte.
The world must increase its pressure on France for its insistence on denying a state from the Native Mahorais People.
The French occupation of the Mayotte archipelago must end immediately.
It's about time the Sunni Muslims of Mayotte finally join their Comorosi brothers in independence, and choose their destiny with their own hands, like the rest of the free nations here on Earth.
Colonialism isn't cute.
The absence of a political horizon the current French government imposes on the Mahorais tires the nations of the world.
Furthermore, France should open its gates wide to defenseless migrants from The Middle East and Africa.
The EU, The UN and the rest of the free world must issue clear guidelines on the issue of labeling of French products from Mayotte. The world must know what it buys.
It is only natural for the just rage of the Muslims towards France to grow further and further with the years.
Needless to say, we expect France to show restraint and proportionality in its pursuit for the perpetrators.
Large, well-equipped, well-armed police units are obviously disproportionate to the minor, moderate forces of the Arab freedom fighters."
Now, imagine this would actually be the bon ton reaction around the world to the horrifying terror attacks in Paris.The elites, the media, the academia - all compete for the most vile way in which they could attack the victim.
Quite repulsive, isn't it?
Imagine...
Photo taken from: http://edgar1981.blogspot.co.il/
Except they do exactly that.
Even though Israel suffers daily terrorist attacks, when it comes to Israel anything goes.
In fact, Israel is perceived as a target so legitimate, the Swedish FM excelled and outdid all her competitors, suggesting Israel among the causes of global Jihad, thus effectively blaming Israel for the Paris attacks. And she's not alone [1, 2, 3].
The truth of the Anti-Israeli logic is stranger than any fiction.
Don't misunderstand me (or misrepresent me on purpose, for that matter). I've got nothing but sorrow and sympathy for the hundreds of innocent people who perished in terror attacks around the world just this last month. But for the elites I've got a different message:
When you call terror victims in another country "settlers", as to suggest they're somehow somewhat more than just innocent civilians, you mustn't be surprised when terrorists come for you.
When you call terrorists in Israel "freedom fighters", you're welcoming the next terrorist attack in your home town.
When you say that "this terrorist attack had rationale" but "that terror attack was completely senseless", you legitimize terrorism worldwide.
A disgusting fantasy is an apalling reality when it comes to Israel.
It's time for all to stop the double standards. Islamic Arab terrorism is Islamic Arab terrorism!
Stop treating Hamas differently than ISIS! Stop deliberately framing Hamas and ISIS differently in the media!
There's no difference between them. Their goals are the same. Sure, minuscule changes can and should be discussed in the academia, but they bare absolutely no significance for the everyman.
Sure, it's not politically correct.
It's also the truth.
To paraphrase a great thinker:
"First they came for the settlers, and you didn't speak up because you weren't settlers.
Then they came for the Jews, and you didn't speak up because you weren't Jews.
And now they've come for you. What the hell did you expect?!"
Stop rationalizing, understanding and supporting terrorists!
The Obama administration views the Iran deal as unstoppable. In the very definition of disregard for the American democratic values - this administration dismisses the facts that the absolute majority of the American public (as shown in extensive polls by both Gallup and PEW), and even the majority of American lawmakers oppose the deal. By painting the reasonable and sound opposition to what is acknowledged across the aisle as a bad deal, as egotistical, narrow minded, opposition-for-the-sake-of-opposition kind of colors, the president is the one who actually turns the issue into a partisan one, not the other way around, effectively destroying any serious discourse on the matter, and dismissing out of hand the national unity, one would think is necessary to put forward a deal of this kind.
Another point that strikes me as highly curious is that the rhetoric used by the supporters of the deal to propagate it - is in fact the same rhetoric used by the opponents of the deal turned upside down. For example, the insult of intelligence celebrity filled propaganda video uses the same arguments the opposition uses: a nuclear Iran, an arms race in the Middle East and ultimately an Iranian bomb - except they manage to use all of those to support the clearly flawed deal. If the deal is as good as Obama is convinced, shouldn't the Democratic propagandists have actual sound arguments of their own other than ripping off and flipping over the counter arguments?
The incitement on behalf of the Iranian leaders and public never stopped, not even during negotiations, and just against Israel (that's a given), but also against the "Great Satan" - The United States of America.
That renders the frequent critical comparison of the Iran Deal to the historic mistake of the Munich Agreement with Nazi Germany as completely unsatisfying. Nazi Germany didn't openly threaten the world with genocide back in 1938.
The only conclusion one can reach from all of the above is that the Obama administration didn't come to the table to negotiate, but rather to sign a deal.
Any deal.
What does it mean from the Israeli perspective? Is this a "new and unexpected turn for our unbreakable bond"?
I'd have to argue it's not.
From the purely Israeli perspective this Iran deal is a direct continuation of the U.S. policy in the Middle East for the past 20-25 years. The question "why?" can serve basis for an altogether different article, but is of little significance for the topic at hand. The fact remains that the embrace of the destructive two-states paradigm by both Israelis and Americans on the lawns of Oslo in 1993, stands at the foundation of this dramatic shift of alliances in the Middle East. Past ally - Israel - is now pressured to give up essential territories. Past enemies - the Muslim world - is now being sought after, pleased, appeased and favored.
Dismissing the possibility Barack Obama and his entire administration are bumbling idiots out of hand, we must conclude that the USA are changing their Middle East strategy in the deepest of senses, attracting yesterday's enemies through sacrifice of yesterday's friends. A Hillary Clinton email released at the end of July as part of her "private" emails scandal provided further proof for these conclusions, I've reached as early as February. The email revealed a Clinton adviser urging Hillary to present Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an "obstacle to peace", and make his politics "uneasy". Although reaching several news outlets, this piece of utterly scandalous information didn't hit shockwaves around the world. There was no media frenzy, no diplomatic outrage.
Nothing.
Realizing how much BS is in the allegation that "Bibi is ruining the Israeli-US relations" and not the other way around, is realizing just how correct Netanyahu was to go against Obama on the Iranian deal, as publicly as he did, Congress speech and all. Not that he ever stood a chance, not with a president so adamant on signing the deal, but he secured a number of serious advantages:
1. He won the battle of public opinion both in Congress and among the American people.
2. He strengthened and put gravitas to the anti-deal arguments.
3. Since Israel wasn't a party to the Iran talks (much to the gloat of Israel's haters), the Iran deal has no legal binding on Israel under international law. Israel remains legally free to pursue its safety in alternative ways.
4. After Netanyahu went the whole nine yards with the diplomatic option, giving it every possible chance, sticking to it still, no one can accuse him of "warmongering".
Israeli politicians should start noting the shift in American policy and stop panicking over it.
One battle might've been lost, but the war is far from decided.
Israel supporters in the U.S., stop voting Democrat.
The times in which we're living impose on us certain game rules, whether we want it or not. One of such rules is "the narrative" and the time imposing it on us is postmodernity. Theoretically, it claims that any perspective on the facts that took place, and on the chronology in which they took place, is viable. At first glance, that seems to be a perfectly legitimate observation. However, practically, it too often means for too many that notions such as facts and chronology become outdated and inconsequential altogether. Not the perspective on the facts changes, but rather facts change to fit one's perspective. Questions like - Who's the aggressor? Who attacked who first? Who started the war? Why was it started? What is the actual chronological order of events? What is the cause and consequence? Who's a terrorist and who's a freedom fighter? - All lose significance.
If any point of view is acceptable, then no one is a liar. If everyone has their own truth, then there's no truth altogether. No facts, no truth - no right or wrong. Let's keep that on the conscience of the people responsible for killing Truth as a concept, by introducing postmodernity into our lives - the academia.
The Nakba, the "Palestinian" mourning day, commemorated on the Gregorian calendar day of the proclamation of the establishment of Israel, is the ultimate example of a "narrative" gone wild. "The catastrophe", "the disaster" of the "Palestinian" people has all the main characteristics of the typical postmodern moral and historical "relativism"; ignoring history, flipping cause and consequence, blowing events out of every proportion, throwing any context out of the window, applying replacement theory and, of course, singling out and using double standards.
What have become of the Nakba farce today in a nutshell is the following:
Evil Zionist Jews came from Europe in 1948 to a completely foreign to them Palestine, escaping the Holocaust (which is usually denied as well), occupied it, starting a brutal genocide on the innocent, civilian indigenous Palestinian population (that continues to this day!), and establishing the Zionist Israel on the ruins of Palestine. Those who weren't slaughtered, were brutally kicked out of their homes and are refugees to this day (along with all their descendants!) in an evil act of ethnic cleansing. This is to be regarded as the greatest crime in human history, Israel should be perceived as the last colonial project, Zionism should be seen as racism and as an unprecedented evil.
Terrible, isn't it?
From the point of view of the progressive-liberal-postmodern-relativist all that is as legitimate and as tangible as any other telling. If it was indeed so, then Israel would be an incarnation of Satan and all the boycotts, bias and disproportionate obsession would have been justified.
From the point of view of a normal person? Not quite so.
With the Nakba Day "celebrated" just last week, on May 15th, it's crucial to set the record straight and make a decisive stand: lies are no narrative.
Let's debunk the Nakba farce for the lies it's built of:
Myth #1: "Jews came to Israel in 1948! / Israel was only established because of the Holocaust!"
Putting aside ancient history, religion, the Bible AND the Quran, this lie ignores the building of Israel by European Jews for some fifty years before WWII. It ignores the first and the second "Aliyahs" - waves of Jewish repatriation to Israel in 1882-1902 and 1904-1914 respectively, way before WWII or the Holocaust. It ignores the establishment of the Zionist movement - the national movement of the Jewish people - in the 19th century. It further ignores the original repatriation of Yemenite Jews to Israel in the 19th century at the same time of and unrelated to the First Aliyah.
Myth #2: "Jews occupied "Palestine"!"
Never at any given time in history was there an independent state called "Palestine", the Jews could occupy. "Palestine" was only a name given to a geographic area by foreign occupiers; Romans, Turks, Brits. The name comes from a Hebrew word "Plishtim", that means... "invaders" (oopsie!), and was given to a foreign, ancient Greek tribe that invaded the land from the sea. There never was a political entity called "Palestine". There never was any unique "Palestinian" people, separate from the rest of the Middle Eastern Arabs.
Myth #3: ""Palestinians" are an indigenous people to Israel!"
Why was this unique criteria needed? Clearly because the universal standard didn't apply to the Arabs from British Palestine. While the exact numbers are disputed among scholars, obviously a significant enough chunk of what's referred to today as "Palestinians" are in no way indigenous to Israel. Children of foreign workers brought in by the Ottomans, result of migrating tribes, gangs moved in during the Arab revolt. Their claim is in no way more primal, than that of the first and second Aliyahs. Not to mention the historical claim on Israel, unique to the Jews.
Now, if we look at UNRWA's original number of 711,000 refugees (even though today they brazenly claim "about 750,000" on their official website!), we'll discover a surprise as well. Prof. Karsh's meticulous research proved the max. estimation of "Palestinian" Arab refugees can only stand at 609,000. That means some 100,000 neighboring, non-"Palestinian" Arabs jumped on to suck on the global community's generous tit.
Myth #4: "Zionists kicked "Palestinians" out! They started it! "Palestinian" terrorism is only a response to Zionist aggression!"
Here comes that pesky-little-insignificant-outdated nuisance called "chronology".
Arabs murdered some 300 Jews during the 1936-1939 Arab revolt. Before the Jews "kicked out" anybody or "occupied" anything. To what were they "responding" then?
Arabs slaughtered 18 Jews in Safed and 67 in Hebron in 1929. To what were they "responding" then?
That list goes on.
Still feel like justifying and rationalizing Islamic terrorism?
Now without even getting into the numbers of the (rather substantial) question of how many Arabs were actually physically expelled by Jews, how many fled on their accord and how many left adhering to the plea from Arab generals to leave (ignoring Jewish leadership pleas to stay and build a life together), so that they could wipe out the Jews quickly and allow them to "come back in two weeks", let's remember a few basic facts:
#1: Arabs were the ones who attacked Jews; five foreign armies, as well as local gangs.
#2. Their directly expressed goal was Jewish extinction and genocide.
#3. They started the war. They planned genocide. They lost. Where's the Nazi "Nakba Day"?
Myth #5: "Zionists have comitted genocide of "Palestinians"! / The Nakba is the "Palestinian" holocaust!"
The Holocaust is not a matter of perspective.
A genocide is not an issue of narrative.
You don't get to call your defeat in 1949 a "Holocaust" just because it's "a Holocaust for you".
The lie of the Israeli perpetrated genocide is a lie of monstrous magnitude, bearing a metaphysical purpose. Its purposes are to prove "Jews are evil after all" - thus exempting Western guilt over the Holocaust, and that "what the Nazis have done to them, they're now doing to the Palestinians", turning Zionism into modern day Nazism and all of Israel into a sort of a Freudian complex. The only conceivable reason for this audacity to bear any succeess whatsoever is to assume Hitler's Big Lie propaganda technique works: "tell a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".
Okay, let's engage in intellectual self abuse: A genocide is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group - courtesy of Wikipedia.
Example #1: During the Armenian genocide, the Turks slaughtered some 1.5 million of the 2 million of Armenians living in the Ottoman empire. That's some 75% of the Armenian population under the Ottoman empire. That's a genocide.
Example #2: During the Holocaust some 6 million of the 9.5 million of European Jews were slaughtered. That's some 63% of the Jewish population. That's a genocide.
Example #3: During the Rwandan Genocide some 500,000 out of the 770,000 Tutsis were slaughtered. That's some 65% of the Tutsi population. That's a genocide.
That list goes on.
Now coming to Israel and the Arabs, out of the 711,000 (UN numbers) displaced "Palestinians" (not out of the entire Arab population of British Palestine, mind you), some 13,000 people were killed. That's some 1.8% of the displaced Arab population. I deliberately used the numbers bearing the seal of the "Palestinian Narrative" approval, even though they're disputed and inflated.
Even their own numbers prove beyond a reasonable doubt there never was a genocide.
Myth #6: "Okay, no genocide, but the Zionists ethnically cleansed Palestine! Secret Zionist documents prove that was their intention all along!"
No matter how much certain progressive-liberal-postmodern-relativist "scholars" will try to twist certain phrases or quotes, take them out of context and detach them from historic perspective, there was a wide consensus of opposition to an expulsion of Arabs across the Jewish political map, left and right.
With that being said, let's also understand "ethnic cleansing" is the postmodern historian's way of demonizing population exchange. In the years after WWII (i.e. the years in question) population exchange with the purpose of creating homogeneous nation states was the international norm, approved and encouraged by the global community in general and specifically in Israel (even by some Arab leaders!). Sure, leaving one's home is always a tragedy, but this was, sadly, happening all over the world and in much (much) higher numbers. All of these exchanges were tragically accompanied by major loss of life as well.
Example #1: 14.5 million were exchanged between India and Pakistan. There was no war. On the contrary it was done to prevent one by uniting the Hindus with the Hindus and the Muslims with the Muslims. Yet both countries were unable at the time to take care of the mass population exchange, and massacres occured on both sides. The exact number of the people killed as a result of the transfer is still disputed, with some estimations going as high as a million dead. Most scholars cite around 500,000.
Example #2: Approximately 12 million of ethnic Germans from all over Europe were driven out of their homes after the Nazi defeat by furious local populations. Even though they were indigenous to their homes, and unrelated in any way to the Nazis. Around 550,000 were killed during the expulsions.
Example #3: The end of WWII has left some significant grudge between the Poles and the Ukrainians as well. 1.5 million were expelled from their homes. As many as 100,000 were killed.
That list goes on.
Population exchange cases worldwide compared.
In blue: the total amount of displaced in each case. In red: those killed during the process.
Some 850,000 Jews (that's 100,000 more than even the current inflated numbers of UNRWA) driven out of Arab lands as a result of the establishment of Israel also come to mind. Those actually were indigenous citizens of their origin countries, living there for centuries. They weren't at war with the Arab population of their countries. They didn't invade the Arabs with five hostile Jewish states. They never swore to drive the Arabs into the sea.
You know, small, insignificant, pesky differences.
Out of all of the millions of refugees the world have seen since WWII only one group keeps its refugee status till today and passes it on to its descendants. Only one has turned their displacement to the core of their national identity. Only one whines and moans till this very day of their "great disaster". Guess which.
By the same token, where's the Indian Nakba Day? Where's the Pakistani Nakba Day? Where's the German?..
That list goes on.
Myth #7: "Zionists are committing genocide of "Palestinians" today!"
Even if you know absolutely nothing about history, international law, politics, the Middle East, the Israeli-Arab conflict or anything else about anything, you still have to be brain-dead to take these accusations seriously.
The Jews didn't come to Israel with the flag of Poland, Russia, Morocco or Yemen. They didn't come to abuse the "riches" and "indigenous population" of Israel for some other homeland. They came to settle in Israel, a persecuted people, leaving everything behind to build a new, Jewish life in their new homeland. To work the land, to build the cities, to develop their own independent, Jewish culture. Zionism is not colonialism, nor is it racism. It's the Civil Rights Movement of the Jewish people.
Coming back to the "narrative era", sure, one man's victory is another man's tragedy. Granted. Even if it's entirely self-inflicted. Granted every loss, every displacement is a tragic event for the people involved. Granted had there never been wars in the world, it'd have been a better place. No question about it. Now, say you've turned this loss into a defining moment in your history, into a cornerstone of your national identity (unprecedented, really). Say, you've turned misery into a career. Say, you've perpetuated the suffering of (the descendants) of your refugees. Say, your national idea is a strikingly negative one, in an absolutely unique way compared to the global practice.
Consider the following, Israel's vice ambassador to Norway, George Deek (who happened to be an Israeli Arab), has brought up this question: Why is the Nakba commemorated on the date of Israel's declaration of independence? Why not, say, this expulsion, or that massacre, or this defeat? What is the Palestinian "catastrophe" all about? Their loss? Their expulsion? Their diaspora? Or is it our victory that is their main cause of mourning?
This is what it's all about. The very essence of the entire conflict. The Palestinians' main problem is not a lack of a country, it's the existence of ours. No other nation got the amount of opportunities the Palestinians did to establish their own state. It's not a matter of territory. As long as a Jewish state exists anywhere within historic Israel, the Palestinian "Nakba" won't end.
It all started with an elections slogan. "Just not Bibi". Catchy, effective, primitive at first, but hiding within it a much deeper meaning. Deeper, perhaps, than what its authors planned to reveal. Later in the campaign, The Labor Party (who switched their name for the upgraded, attractive "Zionist Camp" after joining forces with Tzipi Livni), the main rivals of the Netanyahu led Likud, came up with the somewhat Voldemort-ish "it's either Us or HIM" ("him" - being Netanyahu). But the slogan that stuck most in the collective memory, that was most often quoted and that symbolized the very purpose and essence of these elections for many in the wide public was "just not Bibi".
Anyone but Bibi. Labor's characterless Herzog? Cynical, party-jumping Livni? Veteran TV star and rising political star Lapid? Far left Gal-On? PA's Abbas? Hamas' Mashal? Bin Laden? Doesn't matter. "Just not Bibi". This phrase, in fact, wasn't meant to criticize, since it offered no alternative and, for that matter, no serious argument, but rather delegitimize altogether, practically demonize Netanyahu.
This was also the first time V15, the authors of the "just not Bibi" slogan, entered the Israeli public eye. V15 (V - for victory) officially states it's a "non-partisan movement", set to "replace the Israeli government".
Now, since when do non-partisan movements deal with replacing governments?
Comitted to being "apolitical", as they are, they never stated it was The Labor and Isaac "Boozhi" Herzog, they're supporting, just "replacing the government", but since the Herzog-Livni union was the only one large enough to pretend to replace Likud, and was even leading in the polls for a while, the tiptoeing became insulting. Veteran Israeli TV host, Yaron London, who cannot be "suspected" of rightist views, grilled a spokesperson for the organization, for her insistence "it's not a left-wing government they're working for" and that "any vote for Kachlon (former Likud minister, now heading a centrist, economy-oriented party) and further left is fine with them".
President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, 2010.
Photo credit: Reuters.
That money was well spent. A massive door-to-door campaign, launched in the Tel-Aviv area (à la the Obama campaign and done by the same people), was followed with the best, most expensive, largest scale video clips ever produced for an Israeli campaign. Mimicking movies and TV shows, echoing the Chilean "NO!" campaign. Slamming, slandering, demonizing, vilifying and blaming Netanyahu for each and every problem of each and every citizen personally. Top U.S. dollars well spent.
The media joined in this circus. Forgetting any and all ethical codes, and neglecting their most basic duties of delivering the news, the absolute majority of the press (besides the pro-Netanyahu "Israel HaYom" newspaper and a number of honest individuals) jumped on board with the Anti-Bibi campaign in one of the most shameful chapters in Israeli media's history. The attempt to blame Netanyahu with a "fear mongering campaign" in the last three days before the elections is audacity of unbelievable magnitude. Whatever the press was blaming Netanyahu with in three days, it itself and the left have brazenly done for three months.
Another failed attempt was trying to abuse Netanyahu's "Arabs coming in droves" statement, made on elections day, as a racist slur. This is an insult to intelligence. His criticism was towards V15, organizing buses for the Arab citizens to try and affect the elections' results - a cross interference with the democratic process, not towards the Arabs expressing their civilian rights.
President Obama quickly rode on the, perhaps poorly constructed, address, in his Huffington Post interview. Among a number of highly poignant and incredibly revealing messages on his positions on Israel, he mentioned Netanyahu's "rhetoric" contradicted Israel's principles of democracy and equality, suggesting thus, Israel under Netanyahu might no longer be democratic and equal.
And we all know how America treats the "undemocratic" and "unequal". President Obama then went on to claim statements like that "give ammunition to folks who don't believe in a Jewish state."
The President has successfully found an excuse and a rationalization for Anti-Semitism.
What a sharp change in the views of our "greatest ally".
Furthermore, in the aforementioned interview McLaughlin cited an American effort to unite the different Arab Knesset factions into one party and "teach them about voter turnout". Not only was Netanyahu warning against a perfectly factual occurence, the entire situation might have been a trap by the Obama administration. Don't address the nation to shake it out of apathy and risk losing. Address the nation and we'll present you as a racist to the world. Netanyahu, rather bravely, chose the second option. Later he appologized to the Israeli Arabs for any possible misunderstanding.
And then election day came and all the grand schemes went down the drain. Israeli democracy triumphed. Israelis sent a number of decisive messages to whom it may concern.
A decisive message to the "honest, unbiased, objective" media: No to mindless, stupefying propaganda. We were not born yesterday.
A decisive message to all foreign agents, V15 or others, who wish to meddle in our democracy, in the will of our people, in the fate of our country for their own, alien agenda: We will not become the next Egypt, nor the next Ukraine.
The message was heard loud and clear, but in most probability wasn't learned. Last month I wrote that these players are unlikely to admit defeat and simply walk away. These kind of players never back down. They usually double down. Just like they did during the so called "Arab Spring". Just like they did in Ukraine. And, indeed, no intention of backing down is now displayed by the V15 organization. Its official Facebook and website proudly state "we're not stopping here". Elections day was never the endgame. Nobody's giving up the loads of cash they invested. Nobody's giving up the fat paychecks.
Highlighted on the right: "...until victory isn't achieved, our mission isn't achieved. We're here to stay...", "We're not going anywhere.", "Soon we'll update on how we continue, and we hope you'll all choose to keep on walking with us."
Highlighted on the left: "We're not stopping here. Join us for the rest of the way."
When a slogan like "just not Bibi" is your basis, it really speaks volumes of things to come and things that already took place. If Netanyahu is a "deligitimized pariah to be replaced by all means", then all of his supporters are deligitimized pariahs to be replaced by all means as well, and, surprise, surprise, his supporters are the absolute majority of the nation. The absolute majority that voted either Likud, or other right wing, or even centrist parties, with the clear desire of continuing to see Netanyahu as PM are to be declared idol worshippers, Neanderthals, battered wives... oh, wait... they already have been...
The elections are over and neither the media nor the intelligentsia (full participants in the Anti-Bibi campaign and sore losers) seem to slow down their fury. Neither seem to calm down and return to normal.
What will happen next?
Well, the infrastructure is already laid down: thousands of young activists are already there. Their hatred towards everything and anything related to Netanyahu has been ignited. They're ready to put in double effort for free, on pure enthusiasm. They're a hierarchical organization that's already been set and prepared. The media will jump on board readily. The intelligentsia is already prepared, ready to fight. All the basic requirements for a coup d'etat are there, waiting for a sign. For a call to action. Leftists are and will be pitted even more against rightists . Ashkenazi are and will be pitted even more against Sephardi. Secular against religious. Tel-Aviv against Jerusalem.
Print screens out of a famous Israeli singer Achinoam Nini's (known worldwide as Noa)
They'll wait for the coalition to form. Then a month or two more for an excuse. Any excuse.
The Haredi parties are given major seats? Evil Bibi's selling out "the people" for a government! (The idea the Haredi themselves are part of the Israeli people is unlikely to frequent the "liberal" mind.)
There's no Health Minister? Evil Bibi's neglecting national priorities for his seat! (The notion a deputy minister is appointed from Haredi "Yahadut HaTora" party, because the latter refuse to take ministerial seats due to an historic dispute with the leadership, and the difference between Minister and Deputy in such a case is purely semantic, would actually require some prior knowledge from your average leftist.)
Ministry of Education is given to a right wing, nationalist party? Evil Bibi wishes to brainwash our kids! (Never mind the absolute majority of Israelis voted right, and by so they identify themselves with the right's ideals, and would welcome a patriotic change in their kids' curriculum after the office mutated in the hands of Labor and Yesh Atid parties.)
The prices of housing didn't miraculously drop in two months? Evil Bibi breaks his promises to the people! He only cares about himself! He's corrupt! Detached! Undemocratic! A dictator! (No comments needed.)
It doesn't matter. Anything would do. We've seen a number of large scale social protests in Israel in recent years. When there was no new protest the media was quick to build one out of thin air. Taking out a few isolated incidents, they were all peaceful. Taking people out on the streets is easy. The techniques are well known and practiced to perfection. This time every effort will be made to spur violence. Massive violent clashes with the police are the main ingredient of any revolt. Any scenario from that point on is bloody and disturbing.
This will be the purpose. This we must prevent.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt
This is the time to stress out that the absolute majority of our friends from the left, our Anti-Bibi enthusiasts and even our V15 members are good, decent people, genuinely seeking the betterment of life for all Israelis. This is why I implore all: don't allow yourself to be dragged to the discourse of hate. Don't fall for cheap provocations and propaganda. Ignore the next "spontaneous, apolitical, social" protest on Rabin Sqare. It's so "spontaneous", I've predicted it since February.
Left wing, V15 supported rally on Rabin Square, March 07. The harbinger?
Perhaps you've noticed that ever since the announcement of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's planned speech in Congress (next month) hit the news (last month), the media won't stop vomit. Much ado has been made over Bibi's typical "Israeli chutzpah", who allows himself to fly "just like that", receiving a "mere, expendable" invitation from the Speaker of The House of Representatives. What with procedure? What with regulations? What the hell?!
And what with the facts?
On January, 29th, world's most democratic-liberal-progressive-enlightened newspaper, "The New York Times", released an article, dealing with Netanyahu's tireless attempts to persuade Democratic leaders not to boycott his speech. So far, so good. Thing is, on January 30th, in the best traditions of the democratic-liberal-progressive-enlightened newspapers around the world, "The New York Times" issued a paragraph long "correction", clarifying Netanyahu has accepted the invitation only *after* The White House was notified. Meaning both Boehner and Netanyahu acted in perfect accordance to protocol.
The New York Times article and the correction.
What an honest way to make journalism, isn't it?
In fact, The Speaker of The House has every right to invite whomever he wants. That's absolutely within the norm and within his jurisdiction. And while waiting for the President's explicit approval would, probably, be the way the book goes, the *norm* is that it's never really practiced. It wasn't practiced back when Netanyahu visited in 2011. It wasn't practiced now, when Boehner invited The Pope. The Speaker of The House *doesn't* have to wait for White House "okays". So why the sudden, extraordinary, care for every single aspect of decorum with this specific visit?
Netanyahu addresses Congress in 2011.
Do you really think the invitation procedure was different back then?
Photo credit: AP.
What does it mean?
It means the over-hyped, over the top, boiling hot "ego-crazed Netanyahu willing to harm Israeli-U.S. relations for election campaign's sake" line of coverage is based on a big, fat lie. It also means, the American administration invented a "spat" out of thin air and with absolutely artificial means. It means Netanyahu is not the one "undermining Obama and the Democrats". He's not the one to blame for "the biggest crisis in Israeli-US relations history". It means the exact opposite. It means the Obama administration is the one undermining, inciting and looking for excuses systematically and consistently to harm the relations with us.
Now, just for argument's sake, let's take the side of the cynics. Let's assume, a nuclear Iran poses absolutely no danger at all. Not to the world and not to Israel. Let's assume all Netanyahu cares about is, in fact, his chair, his elections and absolutely nothing else. A politician in the middle of campaign receives an invitation to speak in Congress. Why on Earth should he turn it down? And who would?
As a leader of the free world, as the president of the most democratic-liberal-progressive-enlightened country, as a Nobel Peace Prize winner (!), as the first black president (for crying out loud!), why would you be so nervous and petty about the Israeli PM's planned speech? So, he'll present an opinion different to yours! So what?!
"Because you can't appear to be siding with a candidate in upcoming elections"? That excuse is just an insult to intelligence. Not only because you constantly interfere with each and every issue of each and every country, but because you hosted British PM David Cameron, who's up for reelection himself. Sure, his is due in May, not in March. "Huge" difference. Still, if "purity of elections" is your main argument, while you hosted a foreign politician in the middle of his campaign less than a month ago, excuse the many eyebrows, that rise in light of your reasoning.
President Obama and PM Cameron in the Oval Office, Jan. 16, 2015.
The topic at hand, by the way, was the same - Iran.
Photo credit: Getty Images.
We, in Israel, are about to witness one of the dirtiest campaigns ever, and it's all going to be against The Likud. More accurately against Netanyahu. All of the left's different factions has been united under the hollow, superficial slogan "just not Bibi". It gets worse as the elections get closer. New allegations rise of the illegal connections of that campaign to the V15 group, and from there to the OneVoice International movement. Likud claims Labour breaks the law, because OneVoice is linked to the U.S. *State Department*. Not just to some billionaire private citizen sponsor. The State Department.
It's still early to tell anything for sure. We do know for a fact, The State Department has funded OneVoice on a couple of occasions just two years ago. We do know for a fact, a main backer of V15 is also a major donor to Labour leader, Isaac "Boozhi" Herzog, despite denials on both sides. These accusations will be checked in courts. However, if indeed, there's any truth to them at all, then the situation is more than grave - it's scandalous and shocking. It would mean the U.S. *government* is actively interfering with Israeli democracy (despite the "purity of elections" excuse), and is massively funding the defeat of the acting Prime Minister. It would prove, yet again, Obama is the one set to undermine Netanyahu - not the other way around.
Were you apalled by Netanyahu's "public support" of Romney?
Then what would you say about a multi-million-dollar-elections-campaign-funding kind of support?
And if that has any truth to it, add it to Obama's capricious scenes over Netanyahu's planned visit and connect the dots. *When* Netanyahu wins again, do you really think the American government, would just back off? Admit its failure and go: "Oh, well, we tried! Until next time!"? Think "Arab Spring". Think Ukraine.
"This can't happen to Israel", you think? "We're plenty democratic-liberal-progressive-enlightened ourselves", you believe? There's an "unbreakable bond" between us, isn't there?
"And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt visit the Maidan rioteers in Kiev, Ukraine. Dec. 10, 2013. Photo credit: AP.
P.S.
Israelis, I really don't care who you're going to vote for.
