Netanyahu's political genius strikes again; What REALLY happened in the latest Israeli coalition shift?

Last month contrary to the weeks long buzz of an upcoming deal with dovish opposition leader Isaac "Boozhi" Herzog, upsetting every and all predictions by top pundits and talking heads, PM Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu went on to sign a deal with the perceived hawk Avigdor "Evet" Lieberman, joining his party "Yisrael Beiteinu" (Israel Our Home) to the government instead of Boozhi's "Zionist Union" at the expense of former Defense Minister, Moshe "Bogie" Ya'alon. (Confused yet?)

As result, the leftist media (once again) went batshit, competing each other in doomsday predictions and "slope to fascism" scenarios. Indeed, following Israeli media hasn't been so joyful since Bibi's landslide elections victory.

So I decided to take a few hours off my busy schedule, to clear away the piles of media vomit, accumulated during the month, and bring you all a perspective no one else will.

"What other perspective?!? It's all about political survival!!!"

Let me tell you a little secret.

But you have to promise not to tell anyone.

Ready?

Politicians do things for political survival.

*SHOCK!*

Benjamin Netanyahu (right) and Avigdor Lieberman.

Photo credit: Menahem Kahana / AFP / Getty Images.

Of course Netanyahu's actions are motivated by political survival. All politicians' actions are motivated by political survival. That really goes without saying. No need to repeat that phrase over and over again like some mechanical leftist monkey. It might have given you some cred back in high school, but not anymore. Not among grown ups.

Now let's discuss some serious issues.

From the get-go, with the establishment of the current narrow, bare minimum, 61 MKs strong, right wing government Netanyahu announced his plans for future coalition expansion. "61 is a good number, 61 + is a better number" - he said, keeping a few key portfolios unmanned for potential future partners. A wide majority is obviously better than a narrow majority, allowing the government more freedom of action, less dependence on each MK's caprices or, for that matter, simple sick days. For that purpose of government expansion Netanyahu's Likud people have reportedly held secret talks for months with Herzog's Zionist Union (formerly known as the Israeli Labor Party joined by Tzipi Livni's immaterial latest list).

"Why reach out for an apparently obvious rival? One that ran on the platform of replacing him, and that still pretends to be a viable alternative?"

For Netanyahu that strategy makes perfect sense and has worked out brilliantly for him in the past. By uniting (historically) bitter ideological rivals behind him in his coalition Netanyahu demolishes any points they might have gained over him. This move presents them as empty shells with no substance and no real ideology. Talk talkers but no walk walkers. Job seekers, spitting on their electoral base. Regardless of any real achievements or gains the other party might have achieved for the people, in or out of government - the perception of them was wrecked after joining. It worked seamlessly, practically destroying the political careers of Ehud Barak, Shaul Mofaz, Tzipi Livni (until the union with Herzog gave them both momentum) and, to a lesser degree, Yair Lapid.

Bibi and a selection of politicians nearly destroyed by his "Midas touch".

Left to right: Ehud Barak and Shaul Mofaz (up), Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid (down).

Boozhi was thrilled of the possibility, recounting fantastic tales of gains he managed to hustle from Netanyahu during negotiations. He was ready to join, with portfolios for him and certain other party members. Labor would split like it did once already under the leadership of Ehud Barak, and Likud's traditional main rival would suffer another humiliation from which it would take a few election cycles to recover.

So what happened?

International involvement happened. According to a Haaretz publication (not Bibi supporting, Adelson owned Israel HaYom, mind you), Tony Blair was heavily involved behind the scenes in support of adding Zionist Union to the government, "updating" John Kerry on the progress. Now let's face it, with all due respect to Blair, the days of him being an independent actor in Middle East matters are long gone (if there ever were such days). And normally one "updates" one's boss. So we see here a continuous interference with internal Israeli politics. A logical continuation to the failed attempt of meddling in Israeli elections previously described and foreseen here. The goal here is Israeli capitulation under the guise of the politically-correct, PR-pumped slogan of "Two States Solution".

This is why inserting Herzog was paramount. External players already bet on him by supporting (and funding) him in the elections in hope he'd establish a left wing government - that would capitulate. That plan failed. So now they tried to push him through the back door, hoping he and his party would change the government enough for capitulation (hopefully, by throwing out HaBayit HaYehudi). This time - away from the Israeli voter's eye, and more importantly away from his vote, since every Israeli election in recent years tells you unequivocally the Israeli voter is tired of the destructive Two States paradigm. That's the reason the left hadn't won Israeli elections for 15 years. The Israeli voter astonishingly doesn't want Israel to capitulate, and astonishingly keeps on electing leaders that share this strange desire.

To further this goal of pressing an Israeli PM to capitulate, it was decided involve Egyptian president al-Sisi in the racket. According to Haaretz, Tony Blair urged Sisi to promise in a speech strengthening of ties with Israel, if a Palestinian state is established. Herzog, aware of the international struggle on his behalf, jumped in on the action, assuring his Facebook followers (from his garden, yet still wearing a suit): "President Sissi's speech is a historic breakthrough [...] identifying unique regional opportunities [...] Is the PM ready to utilize these opportunities?"

It is now clear, those "breakthrough opportunities" were, in Boozhi's mind, the chance of having HIM, the savior, in the government.

This was probably their greatest miss. Whether getting some intel on the backroom deals, putting 1+1 together or actually receiving a phone call from Sissi (which is not as outlandish a scenario, as one might imagine), Bibi quickly readjusted to the new circumstances and reshuffled his political deck, reaching out to Lieberman instead.

"But isn't Lieberman a crazy, genocidal fascist, with no relevant military experience, who would be super dangerous in the Defense Cabinet???"

Well, not really.

That is, yes, he has no relevant military experience, but shouldn't the left applaud an appointment of a civilian to the Defense Ministry, as is the custom in Western democracies? Not to speak of hailing yet another "glass ceiling" broken with the appointment of a Russian speaker to the elite, prestigious office?

As for his "dangerous" views, nothing illustrates the reality better than Haaretz columnist Uri Misgav's two columns put one next to the other.

In the last election cycle leftist press sought to portray Lieberman as a centrist hope in the imaginary "just not Bibi" coalition. Misgav went as far as to "predict"... a defense ministry for him under Herzog in his "hope" list. Now, a year and a half later (in a piece that apparently wasn't translated to English... I wonder why?), it turns out that "the very idea (of Lieberman in the Defense ministry) is madness". You can't make these stuff up.

Misgav A: December 09, 2014.

Misgav B: May 19, 2016.

A 'madman', by his own diagnosis.

In a similar fashion, ousted Defense Minister Ya'alon turned overnight from an "unworthy", "serial trouble seeker, "a technician, not a statesman" into an "experienced", "one of the more impressive and appreciated Defense Ministers we had". This magical transformation in the "newspaper for thinking people" was only caused by one thing only - the rift in Ya'alon's relationship with Netanyahu.

As for Lieberman, from his POV, he finally managed to "conquer" yet another "pillar" of the three unofficial "pillars" on the way to Primiership; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Finance. With two out of the three jobs now in his pocket, he's able to present a better case to the Israeli public in the next elections.

What he misses, though, is the potential of a growing electorate, which, for him, can only grow in the opposition, where he can portray himself as a farther right alternative to the Likud. His "centrist" agenda failed, and a "rightist" agenda from within the Netanyahu coalition has little credibility.

So, that's the gist of the recent political upheaval in Israel in a nutshell, from a perspective you won't read anywhere else.

If you wish a better understanding of Israeli politics, you should realize one important thing: Benjamin Netanyahu is a world class, planetary level politician, putting both 'House of Cards' and 'Game of Thrones' to shame. Regardless of your political opinions, your views of his policies or your preferred party, this realization will immediately make you much more proficient in Israeli politics, enabling you to get a better glimpse of what happens in the Knesset corridors, and more importantly why it happens the way it happens.

It's also always a good idea to use your head.

Tweet

When Paris met ISIS

"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.

Sweden found who to blame for ISIS: Israel
Posted by The Jerusalem Post / JPost.com on Monday, November 16, 2015

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.

Source: Honest Reporting. 

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!

Stop aligning yourself with them!

Open your eyes and wake up!

Start using your brains!

Jerusalem stands with Paris.

Will Paris stand with Jerusalem?

Tweet

The Nakba: Facts VS Fiction

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!"

With the establishment of UNRWA some brand new criteria have been established for Arab refugees from British Palestine, different and unique than the criteria for any other refugee in the universe. As opposed to any other refugee in the world, who receives status if he has been driven out of his homeland, the Arab refugee from British Palestine receives status if he's been living in British Palestine for... two years. (Along with his children. And his children's children. And the children of the children...) 

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".

Five Arab armies attacked the Jews on May, 1948 before they "kicked out" anybody. To what were they "responding" then?

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.

You cannot have a genocide with a steady growth of population. (You know, as opposed to a sharp decline.)

You cannot have a genocide with a steady growth in life expectancy, higher than that of the world average.

You cannot have a genocide with a steady decline in infant mortality rate, lower than that of the world average.

That list goes on.

Myth #8. "Israel is a colonialist project!"

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.

Don't let "narratives" brainwash you.

Insist on using your brains at all costs.

Tweet

For whom the bell tolls

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; 

 It tolls for thee."

I, for one, would not like to see Rabin Sqare next in line after Tahrir and Maidan.

I would like to see you using your brains.

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.

This is not what this article is about.

Tweet

The source of violence in the world

How many times have you heard the claim that Israel is one of the most violent places on Earth? The source of violence in the world, in fact? The root cause of global Islamic terrorism? How many world polls have put Israel among the biggest threats to world peace [1, 2, 3, 4]? This claim is repeated way too often and absolutely matter-of-factly, as if it was some common knowledge, an undisputed axiom. It is repeated by highly influential individuals; statesmen, scholars [1, 2], media [1, 2, 3]. Many of those individuals are otherwise perfectly sane and quite intelligent.

So how can they be so ignorant in this matter?

Let's try to put emotions aside and look at the facts. Just some cold numbers.

In the entire (entire!) 154 (one hundred and fifty four) years of the Israeli-Arab conflict a total (total!) of 121,879 people (Arabs AND Jews) were killed. During that period of time we had all-encompassing wars, military operations, Intifadas and also many years of relative quiet. Still that's a lot of people. That's a lot of wasted lives. That's something we all wish to put an end to already.

But let's compare that to some of the other current conflicts. Just a few from the top of my head.

In 2006 the then Mexican President Felipe Calderón proclaimed a war on the drug cartels. Since then, according to a leading Mexican newspaper 'La Jornada', and up to 2012 (6 years) more then 136,000 people were killed as a result of this drug war. That's approximately 11.6% more than the casualties of our entire conflict, except they were slaughtered some 29 times faster. Since the drug war isn't over, it's safe to assume these numbers are much higher today.

Mass protests in Mexico City, demanding justice for the 43 missing students,

recently identified dead, as the violence in Mexico continues. 

Since 2011 (4 years) more then 200,000 people were killed in the ongoing Syrian civil war. That's approximately 40% more, 38.5 times as fast.

Homs, a destroyed Syrian city.

Numbers vary significantly, but the most modest of estimations talk of 2.7 million (million!) dead in the many civil wars in Congo since 1998. These conflicts still continue to this day and the country is in a state of constant crisis. I won't even do the math on Congo.

When was the last time you even heard of Congo?

A fragment of the two million Congolese refugees.

Too bad they don't have a private, unique refugee agency all for them.

Now, don't get me wrong, dear Anti-Semites; I'm not saying that the Israeli-Arab conflict is okay, because in many other places in the world the carnage is much worse. I, just like any other Zionist, am not proud of a single dead. I, just like any other Zionist, wish for the violence to stop. But with that said, a certain sense of proportionality must be implied. My point is - Israel is not "the root cause of violence in the world". It's a tiny insignificant speck in the vast oceans of global violence.

The claim Israel is the reason for the rise of Islamic terrorism is equally absurd. The Syrians are not slaughtering each other because of the "Israeli occupation" of 1967. Nigerian Sunnis don't murder hundreds of other Sunnis because of Israel. The Islamic State is not slaughtering Kurds and Yazidis because Jews go up on The Temple Mount. They can't even show it on a map.

And you'll tell me: "But Israel is a democracy! We hold Israel to a higher standard!"

The moment you hold the Israelis to a "higher standard", you automatically hold the Congolese, the Syrian and the Mexican (who, are democratic as well, by the way) to a lower standard.

Not to speak of the supremacist patronizing of the Palestinians that phrase implies.

Besides, it'll be interesting for you to know, that Jerusalem as the capital of, not only Israel, but also the entire Israeli-Arab conflict, with all its religious and national tensions is much safer right now than such "perfectly peaceful" and "fully democratic" cities like: Edinburgh, Reykjavik, Copenhagen, Toronto, Berlin, Amsterdam, Vienna, Helsinki, Madrid, Sydney, Oslo, London, New York, Los Angeles, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Rome and Dublin - just to name a few. Speaking in violence rates, Jerusalem is not even on the same planet as Baltimore, New Orleans and Detroit.

So, you see, wether you "hold it to it" or not, Israel is on a higher standard than the absolute majority of countries.

Former AP correspondent Matti Friedman explains CNN the media bias over Israel.

Despite what the media and the academia tell you, the Israeli-Arab conflict is not one of the main, most significant, highly crucial conflicts in the world. While solving it, is obviously an utmost priority to its direct participants, it bares practically zero impact on the planet. Solving it won't solve the world's problems, won't stop Islamic terrorism and won't prevent a third World War.

So next time you hear your local media pumping "Israel this, Israel that" in your local news, switch to something more relevant to you, something closer to home or, perhaps, something truly crucial to the world's security.

Or just try using your brains. It's simple and pleasant.

Tweet

Israeli 'occupation' of the 'West Bank': FACT vs FICTION

What are the first associations that come to mind with the word "occupation"? Martial law? Guns everywhere? Poor, oppressed population? Prison-like conditions? Penniless refugees in tents? It's very clear to those who use that libel against Israel, that these horrible images will be the first ones you'll see in your mind, when you hear of the conflict. But, how many of those actually apply to Judea and Samaria (the so called "West Bank")? And can Israel be really called an "occupier"? Let's look at the example of Jericho and decide for ourselves.

This photo was taken at the Tourist Center in Jericho, a major city in Area A. Area A is a zone in the "West Bank" fully under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, where they completely govern, police and educate themselves, as well as vote for their own officials (as often as they do in the Arab world) without Israel's participation.

Myth #1: "The Palestinians suffer from terrible "highway Apartheid", which prevents them from moving freely on their own lands, being constantly subjugated to checkpoints" - BUSTED!

All checkpoints from within areas A and B (those under the PA's control) have been removed years ago. All Arabs travel freely within the PA wherever they want. The checkpoints are located at the entrance to Israeli territory, for the same reason they're located at any other border in the world (especially one with a hostile entity).

Myth #2: "The "Palestinians" live under terrible Apartheid in horrifying conditions of "occupation", whereas the Israelis enjoy riches and luxury" - BUSTED!

The Arabs in Jericho live in a variety of the modern world's accommodations from brand new appartment buildings to luxurious private houses. Not to mention the booming tourist industry.

Myth #3: "The Israeli government treat Arabs with racism and segregation" - BUSTED!

At the entrance to Jericho (and any other Area A town), there's a big red sign telling Israeli citizens in three languages that entering is illegal and also warning them of danger to their lives. Needless to say, no such announcements are found at the entrance to any Israeli town anywhere. You see, the real Apartheid in Israel - is towards the Jews (just like in the Temple Mount)!

Myth #4: "But Israel surrounded the entire "West Bank" with a huge wall (enter any number here) miles long! It's (enter any number here) times bigger than the Berlin Wall! It's a racist wall of ethnic seperation!" - BUSTED!

Had it been a "wall of ethnic seperation" it would have failed miserably, since 1.5 million Arabs live in Israel and 400,000 Jews live in Judea and Samaria. The Security Barrier doesn't seperate ANYONE on ethnic basis. In fact, The Security Barrier is a wall for only 3% (three percent) of its length. The other 97% (ninety seven percent) is just a fence. Yes, it's not pretty, but it allowed Israel to stop entirely the wave of bloody terror attacks known as "The Second Intifada", and to save thousands of lives. 

And, finally Myth #5: "By boycotting Israeli products you help the "Palestinian" cause" - BUSTED!

"Palestinians" use Israeli products daily, boycotting them would harm the "Palestinians" first of all. Many Israeli companies (such as 'Ahava', 'SodaStream', etc.) collaborate with the PA to help bring economic prosperity to both sides. And indeed, the Arabs at the Jericho Tourist Center sell the 'Ahava' products for fantastic, absolutely over the top, dollar prices!

Any conclusions yet?

And you'll say: "okay, okay, I get it, but what about Gaza?!?"

Gaza, dear friends, deserves a post of its own! So keep in touch! And never forget to use those brains!

Shalom!

Tweet

Evil IDF slaughters poor innocent teens!!! The farce continues

The carnival of hypocrisy continues! The Arabs with the help of the ultra-left Israeli organisation 'B'Tselem' (or is it the other way around?) fuel the international media with a completely bogus story, which only purpose is to slander and demonize the IDF. The CNN merrily jumps on board, purporting with their recent coverage to reveal the "smoking gun" of the incident - that of an IDF soldier. His "live" bullet, according to the Arabs' claim, hits the first teen, passes through him, hits his backpack, passes through that and then gets out.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/05/22/pkg-watson-4a-west-bank-teens-shot.cnn.html

Yet, CNN, while remaining completely ignorant, prove quite the opposite:

1. In a pathetic display of absolute professional incompetence, they fail to recognise the gun used by the Israeli soldier has a thickened barrel, which is used to fire rubber bullets, not live ammunition. This supports the IDF claim, that no live ammunition was used in Beitunia. And while a rubber bullet can certainly hurt a lot, and even kill at certain unfortunate occasions, performing all those wonderful feats mentioned above, is completely beyond its capability.

2. The supposed "father" of the "victim" goes out of his way and shows CNN the live bullet that "hit his son". The gullible CNN reporter eats it all up. He never realizes that any bullet that actually hits a target gets deformed and misshapen by the hit. The "father's" bullet, however, is flawless.

Did we mention incompetence already?
If you don't take my word for it, here, listen to a professional:

3. And last but not least: The alleged IDF "killer" in CNN footage is located on higher ground about 80 meters from the alleged "target". Alas, the original Arab reports claimed that the shooting came from a completely different spot 200 meters away. Oops!

And now, with all those new dramatic turns, looking again at the original video, new questions arise:

1. Why does the first dramatic teen fall against the direction of the supposed impact?

2. How come both different teens, falling differently and hit differently, end up in the exact same position on the back with one hand across the belly?

3. Why not on this video, nor on any other documentation of the incident is there any blood? The bullet did go through them, tearing up both back and chest, right?

The IDF, due to its formal position and because of public opinion, must mumble in return to this obvious fraud. So do the rest of the official Israeli bodies and media. They all agree to label the incident a "real incident". The only argument they allow themselves is that of versions: rubber vs live. They're not free to call a spade a spade.

You, however, are not bound by such weight. You can see a "father" blatantly lying to international cameras and call him a liar. You can see a sloppy 'Pallywood' staged act and call it BS. You don't have to be ashamed or afraid of the truth. You can speak up.

There probably are two corpses. They probably have been shot. But we have no idea how, when or by whom have they been shot. This should be investigated. We do know, for a fact, clearly and unquestionably, that the teens from infamous incident are alive and well. And we have no reason to pretend otherwise.

P.S.

If you think, staging an entire play for the world media is too much of a conspiracy theory, watch this video by professor Richard Landes from Boston University, who revealed the 'Pallywood' method back in 2008.

Tweet