PZ HANDS OUT TWO BIG FUCK YOU'S

YEP... that's right - I have two big FUCK YOU'S to hand out.

First to Turkish PM Reccip Tayyip Erdogan...

You get a Hearty Fuck You for this. First you say this:

“We should be striving to better understand the culture and beliefs of others, but instead we see that people act based on prejudice and exclude others and despise them,”

 Then you follow up with this:

“And that is why it is necessary that we must consider — just like Zionism or anti-Semitism or fascism — Islamophobia as a crime against humanity.”

Zionism is a crime against humanity??? Really??? The philosophy that Jews have a legitimate right to self determination is akin to anti-Semitism or fascism???? WHAT THE... ?????

Hey Reccip.. How about you, take your own fucking advice and "try to better understand the culture and beliefs of others instead of being a dumb piece of shit and lecturing people about understanding while you spout anti-Semitism. What are you a regular poster at Daily Kos? At least there I might understand you having the I.Q. of a fucking Hamburger.... How the do you even dress yourself in the morning, dumbfuck?

Our second FUCK YOU goes to Empress Trudy and the folks over at Israel Thrives.

In one of their perfect little screeds "Empress Trudy" goes off her meds and advocates for mass murder. What? You don't believe me... Well here you go:

I suggest the IDF surround Gaza with a few dozen towed 155mm howitzers to randomly lob one or two unguided and barely aimed HE rounds into Gaza for each mortar or rocket that flies out. Don't even worry about looking for the Gaza rocket shooters. Just fling 1 or 2 $1,000 plain artillery shells into the most densely packed areas in Gaza. In practice the odds of any one person or family being killed or injured are astonishingly low. But that's not the point. The point is FEAR. And fear is what the need to live with. They need to worry. They need to be afraid.

Great fucking idea there Trudy... Lets be just like the murdering pieces of Human Crap in Hamas and Hizbollah and let's lob some artillery into Gaza, what's the worst thing that can happen? The IDF kills a couple of women and children or a few innocent civilians? I mean what are their lives worth anyway? They're only Arabs anyway... Right? (/snark).

And why to the crew at Israel Thrives? After all they didn't write this. Because not even one of them could nut the fuck up and condemn that piece of shit. Just couldn't be bothered.

For all the whining and whinging you people do regarding how evil the Arabs and Muslims are.... You are not one iota better OR even different. You guys just endorsed the murder of civilians so that that the rest of the population can live in fear. Hey idjits... You think the people in Gaza will be cowed by that? You think they are not afraid of the IAF/IDF now? They are, but they don't care. Hamas are fanatics, they just want to kill Israelis. IF they die in some massive shelling attack they believe they get to leave this miserable place and go live with 72 virgins. What kind of strategy is that?

But hey... way to go. You all are complete failures as human beings. 100% complete failures. You... have become what you hate the most... Good going future Jihadis.





 :

BDS GETS CRUSHED AT OXFORD

YEP,.... BDS was absolutely and totally CRUSHED at Oxford University yesterday by a vote of 69-10 with 15 abstentions. Now I am not sure how the BDS folks are going to try to spin this is a victory. Maybe it will be "Well BDS won a huge victory by getting voting on at Oxford and while it barely lost ten brave souls showed what they could do against the Zionist Propaganda Machine" or some such nonsense as that.

As one student put it (paraphrased), "I don't know why this is even being voted on, I mean to affiliate the school with a group that is known to be anti-Semitic...."

And as Eylon Aslan-Levy (the Israeli student that George Galloway walked out on, stating he wouldn't talk to Israelis) stated: 

"Oxford students showed that their commitment to intellectual freedom is unshakeable.

"In rejecting calls for a boycott against Israel by a seven-to-one margin, we demonstrated resoundingly that we want Oxford to continue to cooperate with Israeli academics, trade with Israeli businesses and debate with Israeli debating societies.
"I hope that other British universities will follow Oxford's lead in standing up against divisive attempts to hinder academic cooperation and progress." 

 and over at the Times of Israel they report

According to UJS Campaigns Director Judith Flacks, “It’s encouraging to see that this vote reflects a student body who are willing to discuss the complexities that exist within Israel and do not see boycotting it as a viable option or avenue to discuss the conflict.”

One Oxford student who had campaigned against the motion described the atmosphere on campus as “tense” in the run-up to the vote, which individual college student unions (known as “common rooms”) had two weeks to consider.

Henry Watson, a third-year Philosophy, Politics and Economics student at Magdalen College, said that the motion’s sponsors had initially presented their agenda as “pro-peace, while Israel was against peace, and that this would try and get peace through placing economic pressure on Israel.”

As the motion was discussed by the common rooms, he said, students found out that the motion would also have promoted an academic boycott, that the BDS movement “was against the two-state solution” and that the movement’s founder, Omar Barghouti, had made “racist remarks.”

This crushing defeat though does not end the BDS Movements attempts to get British Universities to support their racist agenda. Again as the TOI reports:

Despite the success at Oxford, it seems likely that a BDS motion will still be on the agenda of the NUS conference next month. Oxford students told The Times of Israel that an identical motion was distributed by the BDS movement to other universities, although it is unclear how many are going to debate it.

One can only hope that this is the first step in further humiliating the morally bankrupt racist BDS movement at British Universities and that there will be many more victories like this in the future.

Chuck Hagel and Fringe Disappointment

Yesterday after much Republican grandstanding, chest thumping and generally wasting everyone's time, Former Senator Chuck Hagel was voted through the Senate as Secretary of Defense. Immediately the fringe blogosphere went nuts.

We saw commentary from the fringe right like this:

And now, due to American Jewish progressive-left ideological blindness, we have the first openly anti-Semitic Secretary of Defense in modern times; a man who favors Iran and Hamas and Hezbollah over the Jews in the Middle East.

or like this:

Hagel is a whore for sale to the highest Arab and Persian bidder. Always has been. He's a narcissist who'd rather be hated than ignored. And of course he's that perfect mix of stupid leftist progressive and right wing Pat Buchanan racist.

and from the Fringe Left we get this:

Hagel now stands in the place of George Marshall, except that where Truman’s Secretary of State warned of fanaticism, now fanaticism has become internal to the US government as well as spreading over the Middle Eastern zones of the empire. Obama, freed from Truman’s burden of facing election, is also free to settle scores, including with his nemesis, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, who was dumb enough to have blatantly favored Mitt Romney for President—or was he rewarding the Republican for reaching new depths of servility when Romney pledged that on any matter involving Israel, he would phone Netanyahu and do whatever the PM told him to?

Now, personally I am not a big fan of Chuck Hagel, in this article, I explained that in my opinion Chuck Hagel won't really affect anything with regards to Israel or the Jewish People. My objection to Hagel comes from the fact that the President felt he needed to push a Conservative Republican into a fairly high level post when there were plenty of liberal Democrats (Joe Sestak, Jim Webb, Bob Kerrey, Wesley Clark, Michele Flournoy, to name a few) that were well qualified. As a Democrat, I didn't vote to see a person who had complained about the "Jewish Lobby" or who had made very problematic statements regarding the LGBT community, or who had an overall extremely conservative voting record, placed into high office in a Democratic Presidency.

The fact of the matter (to be blunt) is that the fringes on both sides will be very disappointed. For the lunatic Left, Hagel is not going to commence the bombing of Israel today, tomorrow, or any other day. U.S. policy towards Israel is what it is, and this President has committed us in both words and action to higher levels of security coordination with Israel than ever before. Whether he wants to or not, (and frankly I don't think he cares), Hagel is not going to, and doesn't have the power to change that. That is a policy decision made by the President. The Secretary of Defense doesn't get to make that policy. All he (or she) would get to do is carry out the orders of the President.

If one looks at Hagels record with regards to voting on issues concerning Israel, Hagel's record is certainly not indicative that he will be either the masked avenger on the Jews that the Hard Left wants, or that he will be ready to start shipping arms to Hamas next week like the Lunatic Right Fringe wants. In fact Hagel's voting record on Israel is pretty much standard fare for most American politicians.

Here are the actual facts regarding Sen. Hagels voting record  Some of which include:

• As a United States Senator, Chuck Hagel voted time and time again to provide $37.8 billion dollars of military and security assistance for Israel.
• Hagel cosponsored resolutions with Sen. Dianne Feinstein including "commitment[s] to a true and lasting solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, based on the establishment of two states, living side by side in peace and security and with recognized borders" and calls on "Hamas... to recognize the State of Israel's right to exist."
• Chuck Hagel voted in favor of the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1998⁴, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000⁵, and the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006⁶. He is skeptical of unilateral sanctions, but supports multilateral sanctions which we have seen, in concert with allies, put tremendeous pressure on Iran

But... that doesn't really matter. The overriding fact is that the Secretary of Defense simply does not make policy regarding our alliances or support for foreign nations or groups. That is the White House in conjunction with State. Hagel as Sec. Def. has to do what Pres. Obama tells him to do, and any policy decisions have to clear the White House. Simple fact.

Frankly, (and again I don't particularly support the choice of Hagel not that it matters now but....) is that Hagel was brought in to do two things and two things only. The first is to stand up for U.S. veterans and their rights. Hagel has done a good job of that throughout his career. The second is that the Pentagon is going to be and frankly needs to be cut to help with budget concerns. Hagel is a reasonable choice for that job. Hagel is not the Secretary of Defense for Israel, nor is he the Sec. Def. for only the Jewish People. Some people really need to understand that.Hagel IS  the Sec. Def. of all American People and as such he is responsible to the entire nation, not just one part of it.

OH and is Hagel the "worstest, most ebilz, Sec. of State ever for Israel, I think not.

How about Harry S. Truman's Sec. Def. James Forrestal who urged President to Truman to reject Partition in 1947 because it might "infuriate" the Arabs and then saying that Jews were too influential in pressing the American Gov't. Remind me again how that stopped the U.S. from voting for Partition.

Or what about Casper Weinberger of President Reagan's admin. You know, the REPUBLICAN administration where the President actually went to present honors on German SS unit graves, that administration. Here is a little something about Weinberger:

In contrast to other members of the Reagan cabinet known for their sympathy toward the Jewish state, including Secretary of State George Shultz and the president himself, Weinberger developed a reputation not only for opposing Israel’s interests directly but for seeking to prevent any action, including counter-terrorist operations, that might upset Arab allies of the United States (vb1 emphasis).  Until the Iran-Contra scandal broke in 1986, Weinberger was perhaps best known for orchestrating the sale of AWACS jets – the highly advanced airborne surveillance, command, and control system built by Boeing – to Saudi Arabia. Opposed by Israel and much of the American Jewish community, the Saudi AWACS deal generated enormous controversy.

So, I am not sure how we can really take the fringe seriously on either side as to their objections regarding Hagel. 

Either way, he was not my pick but now that he is in office, I say we judge him by what he actually does, NOT by what we think he may or may not do. Either way, the fanatics are going to be bummed out because their shrill cries (in support of or against) that he will be bombing Israel or sending gift baskets to open up our friendship with Hamas and Hizbollah simply won't come true and really have no basis in fact. As I said previously, Hagel's job is to watch over the U.S. Military in time when we will be paring it down and have a great deal of soldiers coming home from war.

How he does that will tell us what kind of American Secretary of Defense he will be.

Why the Two State Solution is the ONLY solution

Or better titled... when the "CW" (Conventional Wisdom) gets it completely wrong.

Everyone is spouting that the Two State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is either dead or dying, but frankly I see it getting stronger and stronger. I honestly do. I just can't see how a One State Solution can ever happen. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't see a Two State Solution along any of the lines that have been previously discussed, NOR do I see a Two State Solution along the lines that either side's hard Rightist wings would find acceptable, BUT I do think it is the only realistic possible outcome.

We keep hearing how Israeli annexation is dooming the Two State Solution. We keep hearing how Hamas' rocket fire and insistence on destroying Israel is dooming the Two State Solution but all of it, and I mean all of it is complete nonsense (or as I learned in Hebrew - "Shtuyoat" - stupidity). Why?

Well let's look at the arguments and take them out to their logical conclusions. First let's take the argument that Israeli settlements stand in the way of the Two State Solutions. Ok... I can see why someone would say that. I mean Israeli settlements are popping up in parts of the West Bank that are fairly remote and even though these settlements are technically illegal and the Government looks the other way, they are also fairly non-sustainable. It is pretty obvious that these settlements are meant to create "facts on the ground" and make sure that there is no acceptable (to the Palestinians) way to reach a Two State Solution. SO... let's say that these settlements are allowed to continue to pop up here and there creating little "facts on the ground" at some point Israel will be faced with a choice - annex the West Bank or annex the territory just around those settlements... OR turn that territory over to the Palestinians and let the settlers fend for themselves (which is something NO Jewish P.M. could ever, ever do).

IF Israel annexes the West Bank they run into a major problem. Demographics. All of a sudden Israel inherits approx. 2.6 million Palestinians. That is a lot of Palestinians for Israel to absorb as citizens. That would place considerable strain on social services not too mention the IDF who would now have to constantly patrol areas of the country that had absolute hostility to the central government. Oh, and not too mention that these new citizens would vote and soon enough would comprise part of an Arab majority inside of Israels borders. That would be in effect the end of Israel as we know it.

So what do those who favor annexation advocate... well there are three options that they support. These are:

1. Annexing the West Bank and keeping the Arabs as "not quite citizens". In other words, disenfranchising around 22% of the population of the State. I would think the downside of this is obvious. It would immediately cause either revolution or intense civil unrest. Oh and I can't imagine any other nation supporting Israel in this venture. Not even the U.S. would support this. In this case Israel's internal budget which is already stressed would be further pushed by having to support continued military operations throughout Palestinian Populated areas for an indefinite amount of time. It would become simply unsustainable.

And then let's look at the effect on morale in the IDF. Israel is a fairly progressive society in certain ways. For the IDF to take on the role of Oppressors to 22% of their nation, that would completely destroy Israeli secular society and turn the country into something far, far worse. The IDF would cease to be a defensive force and would transform into a police force and Israel into a police State, because I cannot imagine that the majority of Israeli Arabs would put up with this in their nation for one moment.

2. Another option is the Bennett Plan, where Israel Annexes Area C and maintains Areas A & B as autonomous provinces. Again, where will Israel get the international support for something like this? How will it budget for this? What role will the IDF take in maintaining calm should the PA simply say, "Screw you - handle security yourselves". Remember, the world voted to recognize Palestine as a State, and while the World community may be inept in many cases becoming a State like North Korea (but without a large nation to support it, because no way the U.S. goes a long with this) is not something that is realistic for Israel to do.

The problem with the Bennett plan (aside from the obvious denials of Palestinian Right to Self Determination) simply is unworkable. The Palestinians would never accept this and would actively contest it. Unless Israel would be willing to "go Kahane" on the Arabs (which would then start a major regional war) there is no way that the Israelis could permanently maintain this situation. Sure the status quo is holding but, only because the Palestinians in the West Bank have chosen non violent resistance (by and large but not in every case). What happens when they go into full revolt? And what happens when that is seen as justified by the World community including both the U.S. and E.U.

3. Of course the third option is to simply ethnically cleanse the Arab Population from the West Bank. That would certainly solve a couple of the problems of maintaining an Occupation. Of course, perhaps those proponents of this solution should ask the Serbs how that worked for them. Not too mention that the Israelis would face full on revolt from 20% of it's population along with continued attacks from pretty much every surrounding Arab Nation. Hell, if they tried that even the E.U. would probably send forces or at least major support to the Arabs.

And what of those morons who say... "Well Israel can go it alone".... Really? You think Israel can stand against the rest of the world including the U.S. and E.U. Some moron once said "Well let's tell the Americans we are on our own and that we will get other allies". Who the fuck are they going to get? The Russians? The Russians are in bed with everyone but the Israelis. The Chinese? The Chinese are sucking at the Arab Teat for the worlds remaining Oil Supplies. Are they seriously maintaining that Israel could actually go "North Korea" (who is propped up only through the largesse of they Chinese).

So there really is no other option for Israel - IF Israel actually wants to survive.

At the same time... The Palestinians have absolutely ZERO options if they want a Single State. By going to the U.N. all they did was codify the Two State Solution. The Russians and Chinese may dislike Israel but they are not going to actively work to help radical jihadists and Mullahs in Iran realize their dream of wiping out a recognized State. PLUS the U.S. and Western Europeans would never allow it.

As for those on the Israeli and Palestinian Left that advocate the "Palestinian One State Solution". NO ONE on their side, but, NO ONE takes them seriously. In the latest poll of Palestinians only 22% supported a One State Solution where Jews and Arabs lived side by side. I mean, nobody, not Israelis not Palestinians wants a One State Solution. It is freakin' ridiculous that this theory is even given a second thought.

At some point, everyone is going to come to a reason that Israelis and Palestinians simply can't live in the same nation under a One State flag. Both sides (rightly so) want their own "homelands". Of course I support the fact that Jews should be able to live in Palestine, and that Arabs should be able to live in Israel as full and equal citizens with the caveat that people remember that Israel is the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People, and Palestine would be the State and National Homeland of the Palestinian People.

There simply is no other way the situation can continue to exist without either a major revolution or war breaking out there. At some point the "dam will burst" and when it does, there won't be much left to piece together. So whether it through Israeli Unilateralism (because we already have the theoretical establishment of Palestine through Palestinian unilateralism), or a world effort to quell violence in the region this is what is going to happen. And even if war does breakout, this is what will be imposed whether both sides like it or not because neither side can take on the West, or the combined efforts of the Russians and Chinese. And at some point the major players WILL take care to see a solution imposed on the region.

I am just telling you what I think is real and what will play out in macro terms. If you see it playing out differently, please let me know how you see that. I would be curious to see what others think.

A Truly WTF??? Moment....

Today I was looking at the Times of Israel and here was the Headline that just greeted me:

‘Hamas agrees to Palestinian state on ’67 lines’

Hamas is prepared to accept a Palestinian state demarcated by the pre-1967 lines, with Jerusalem as its capital and without any Jewish settlements within its borders, an official in Hamas’s political bureau said on Monday, noting that the sole difference in outlook between his organization and Fatah on the matter concerns recognition of Israel...

...But Abu-Marzouq denied claims that Hamas had decided to forgo military confrontation with Israel.

“Claiming that Hamas abandoned the resistance for a long period of time is strange. How can that be argued, when Hamas waged three wars in five years and everything in between was periods of preparation?” he said.

So, let's see if I have this right... Hamas accepts that there will be a Palestinian State in the 1967 Lines of the West Bank, with ALL of East Jerusalem as it's capital. Meanwhile, they will not accept Israel as "legitimate", will continue with violence, and in their graciousness (/snark) will allow Fateh to rule the area.

Of course their Western Allies and drooling Useful Idiots will of course jump on this to say: :"HEY, lookie here, Hamas wants Peace with Israel, I mean they just said they accept a Palestinian State within the 1967 Lines of the West Bank..I mean how can they argue against that???"

Well there are a few ways one can argue against that. The first is that I read this as saying Hamas accepts ONE State from the Green Line to the Med. as a Palestinian State run by Fateh. BUT, they don't accept Israel.

Well then, what do they think should happen with the rest of the land? Well, if I had to guess, I would guess that since they don't accept Israel as "legitimate" they would probably push for ANOTHER Palestinian State inside the "Green Line".And who would run this State.... Why probably Hamas itself.

And since Hamas has declined to forgo military confrontation with Israel (as their rocket from Ashkelon last night showed - as well as Abu-Marzouq's comment about taking the time "in-between" wars to use as "periods of preparation") why in the world would Israel take anything that Hamas says about "accepting a State within the 1967 Borders" as a serious attempt to make peace. I mean seriously, who would actually advocate for Israel to drop back to the 1967 borders just so Hamas doesn't have to make an effort to take that land. I didn't realize that Israel's job was to make it easier for Hamas to destroy it.

In the end, what Hamas is proposing is simple... Israel retreat from the Territories and then the Arabs can pick up where they left off on June 4th 1967, in trying to destroy Israel. They are not proposing anything else and anyone who thinks they are, is either dumber than a bag of rocks OR is seriously high out of their minds.

Oh and now they have Palestinian Popular opinion to back them up. Here are some findings from a recent Poll taken of Palestinian Public Opinion

• Haniyeh (Hamas) defeats Abbas (Fatah) in a presidential election by 48% to 45%, but Barghouti (in Israeli Jail and not likely to get out) wins against Haniyeh, 51% to 42%.
• In a three way presidential elections, Haniyeh receives 39%, Marwan Barghouti 29%, and Abbas 27%.
• In a parliamentary election, Fateh wins 36% and Hamas 35% of the voters.
• To force Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian state, the largest percentage (41%) believes that armed attacks on Israeli army and settlers would be the best way but 24% believe the best way is to return to negotiations.
• 60% believe that Hamas’ way is the best way to end Israeli occupation while only 28% believe Abbas’ is the best way.

• Concerning armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel, I….
  	1) certainly support	15.5%
  	2) support	35.3%

   

And there we have it... NOW one important thing to note regarding the last comment is that this number is great because of Gaza. In the West Bank the poll showed only 40% (right, ONLY.....) supported attacks against Israeli citizens.

So given all of this, Hamas' offer means absolutely nothing. Zero... Nada... Effes... Zilch. But it does crystalize for Israelis exactly what they are up against when it comes to the Palestinian Polity, AND in my opinion makes for perfect reasoning as to why there really needs to be a Two or Three State Solution.

When the "A" Word is Simply NOT Appropriate

Amongst critics of Israel as of late, there has been a stepped up effort to label Israel as an "Apartheid State". Now this meme has been circulating around the Far-Left for a while and now it has been picked up by the Rightist Haters as well in their unholy alliance with the leftist fringe. It has become yet another distortion in the anti-Semitic quiver of weapons against Israel and by extension the Jewish people.

According to the dictionary "Apartheid" means:

1: racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa

2: separation, segregation <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>

But it means much more than just "racial segregation" or "separation". Apartheid has come to be associated specifically with the brutal segregation of races that took place in South Africa. It has gone beyond being a just a word and has become a term associated with a criminal regime that created racial separation on the perceived basis of racial superiority. Nothing more, nothing less. MOREOVER, the word came to symbolize an oppressive minority population holding a vast majority population in thrall and using that population as close to slave labor. And that is the image that those who would de-legitimize Israel want to promote concerning not just Israel but of Jews in general.

And how best to promote this meme... by simply repeating it over and over again (btw, we see this same defamation on the other side of the political spectrum by Republicans and those suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome but, this article / diary is not about that). But also by cherry picking quotes from Israeli and Jewish leaders / writers and carrying them completely out of context.

But this is the problem with using the "A" word. It is such a charged word that it renders any discussion of the issue meaningless. It reduces the discussion to a simplistic, cartoon like version of two children saying "Yes, You Are" and "No, I'm Not -  you are". In general using the term "Apartheid" to describe the Arab-Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows either an amazing ignorance of the situation or an incredibly deceptive, Machiavellian streak in one's political life.

NOW... before anyone goes on to talk about how the Israelis use the term when talking about themselves that is completely a contextual thing. Just as some Israelis will call other Israelis "Nazi's", and they do, there is a whole other context where people talking about themselves will say harsher things to make a point. That, though, is another topic regarding language. BUT these Israelis in the Jewish establishment that do use the "A" word use it in a far different manner than those (both Jewish and non-Jewish) do.

Even then I think it important NOT to use that term because the situation in the Territories between Jews and Palestinians (and even should Israel annex the Territories) is very different from the racially charged premise of South Africa and it's relations of Whites and Blacks. First let's look at these differences:

1. In South Africa Whites were 12% of the total population. In Israel proper Jews (the supposed minority group) are approx. 76% of the population. Even with the Annexation of the West Bank, Jews would still be 55% of the population in Israel.

2. In South Africa, Blacks were not allowed any integration whatsoever with their fellow South African White citizens. Pools, Education, drinking fountains, even bathrooms were completely segregated. Blacks had no place in South African political life and were not even allowed a vote. On the other hand, in Israel, Arabs and Jews attend school together (in mixed neighborhoods), Israeli Arabs are not segregated at restaurants or for medical care or in public beaches. Arabs vote and participate in the Israeli government and have three parties in the Knesset that represent their interests. In fact, when Israel annexed Jerusalem, Arabs were offered the opportunity to become full Israeli citizens and they refused. I don't think during Apartheid that Blacks were ever offered that opportunity.

3. Israel was not created on a basis of racial superiority nor is the idea of a Jewish Homeland or State based in an ideology of superiority. The Palestinians that live in Israel are not seen as "sub-human" by law despite what some of the nuttier Rightists spout. Israel was formed as a recognition of the need of the Jewish people after being scattered to the "four corners of the Earth", to be able to express their legitimate right to self determination. AND it was recognized that the Jewish People should have this homeland in part of their ancestral lands in the Middle East.

I cannot imagine that the Dutch or British colonists heading for South Africa felt that they were actually returning to their "roots". I mean, last I checked White people were not really from anywhere near there. And while they had their reasons for going there in the first place their treatment of the black population there was solely based on racial memes. I cannot imagine that the South African Declaration of Statehood had these words in them:

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

From the Israeli Declaration of Establishment of State.

But let's take the "worst case scenario" and assume that something like the Bennett plan (HaBayit HaYehudi) or the Rightists in Likud gets their way and Israel decides to annex the Occupied Territories. That still could not be considered "Apartheid. One may disagree with it and find it morally wrong (as I do). One would have a good case arguing that the disenfranchisement  of a sector of the population would destroy the very notion of "Jewish Democracy", and be a clear violation of human rights and they would get no argument from me whatsoever. BUT.. It would still not be apartheid. For instance, under the Bennett Plan (a plan that I vehemently stand against), the Palestinian population in Area C and Jerusalem would be granted full Israeli citizenship whether they chose to exercise it or not. Area's A & B would be under autonomous control of the Population and would not have any local Israeli presence (though this does resemble the concept of "Bantustans" that the South African Apartheid regime enacted).

Even the reasoning behind such extreme measures does not measure up to the term. While I would never and will never agree that these are necessary steps, the fact of the matter is that Zionism is simply not about the subjugation of other peoples. It is about the necessity of the Jewish people to have a State and Homeland. I would further argue that the measures for forced security that the Bennett Plan or what Likud-Betainu offer are severely oppressive and in my mind pose a threat to the integrity of the State, they are not based on some notion that Jews as people are superior and that Arabs should not have rights (as neither plan takes away rights of Arab Israelis) despite what a small minority in both of those groups believe.

Still, the Apartheid government of South Africa never offered any of the Black Population full citizenship or equal citizenship as it did to White South Africans.

The situations and charged verbiage of "Apartheid" simply don't match up to the reality of the situation no matter what anyone wants to call it. Thus, the term "Apartheid" when used here should be completely and totally rejected for the canard that it is. It simply is inapplicable to the situation.

Moreover, I would say that the majority of the opposition to Israel's existence IS based on anti-Semitism and a feeling that Jews as a people are intrinsically inferior. I say this from both reading AND from personal experience. Certainly there are a few deluded individuals who think that they can create a society based on total equality in an Arab run polity in Palestine however, there simply is no background nor historical precedence to back this idea up.

 More disturbing is this poll from the Palestine Research Center which finds only 27% of Palestinians support a One State solution where Jews and Arabs would be equal, where 51% of respondents support attacks on Israeli civilians inside of the "Green Line" and where if elections were held today Hamas (an organization that has as part of it's charter that Israel should be destroyed and all Jews should be hunted down and killed) would win.

So, honestly, unlike Whites in South Africa, Jews in Israel DO face an existential threat to their nation and very lives.

I do want to make clear though that despite my rejection of the use of the term "Apartheid" this does NOT mean that I think the situation as it exists is either tenable nor moral. Further, I believe that disenfranchisement of a large portion of the population of a nation IS oppression and unjust. I think that it destroys the very fabric of the concept of Israel (or at least what Israel's founders envisioned), and I think it goes a ways towards destroying the nation of Israel itself.

And to the critics of this... I don't care what the Arabs do or don't do in their own societies. I am not one of them, that is for them to reform or not - it's up to them not me. What I do care about is how we as Jewish people deal with ourselves and our situation. THAT is my concern. I think that becoming like our enemies simply defeats the purpose of what I believe and that belief is that we need to be the best we can be as both a society and as individuals. I do not want to treat others as I would not want to be treated. I want to strive for the nation that Ben-Gurion envisioned when he sought a nation that would be "a light unto all nations".

Use of the term "Apartheid" for the Israeli Palestinian situation is simply intellectual laziness and exposes complete weakness in persons argument. I believe that it is important that we fight the "Apartheid meme" with all of our abilities and with logic and reason. Even when those who use it obviously are not drawing parallels to South Africa, it is important that we simply but forthrightly stand up against that meme. It is simply wrong to use that term and for this situation highly inappropriate.

New Elections for Israel?

As the coalition building process wears on, a few things become obvious.

The first is that Tzipi Livni and HaTanuah have effectively counted themselves out of Israeli politics should there ever be new elections. Her racing to join Likud in coalition in return for the Justice Ministry (and the ceremonial Head of Negotiations with Palestinians team) plus the Environmental Portfolio AND the Head of the Knesset House Committee and willingness to toss away all of her pre-election promises renders her irrelevant.

Sure, she could have argued that at least moderate forces got those ministries (particularly Justice and the Environment) which might otherwise fall into the hands of Rightist "hacks" determined to follow Likud's hoped for economic policy patterned on Republican Randian Economics, but, that is easily disputed as seen by Likud-Betainu's protests about her impinging on "Rightist Legislation" (to quote Likud MK Ofir Akunis). 
Not too mention that her party is already struggling due to communication issues within the party:

During the meeting, Livni told those present that contrary to reports in the media, she has not yet decided Hatnuah's second minister. She also told the MKs that she and Netanyahu had not yet agreed on which committee would be given to her faction or which Knesset member would be its chairperson. 

Not all of Hatnuah’s MKs were pleased with Livni’s actions in signing the coalition agreement.

 

“Livni didn’t tell the Knesset members in advance that she had reached agreements with Netanyahu," a party official said, "and she told the media she had signed before the members knew about it.  

“The way Amram Mitzna was treated won’t go by quietly, either," he added. "The fact that Amir Peretz behaves in this party as if it were his own, making Livni break an earlier agreement she had with Mitzna, is wrong. Mitzna should be the next minister from the party.” As soon as the meeting was over, Livni held a private meeting with Mitzna on the matter.

 The next thing we know is that either to join the government, either Yesh Atid or Habayit HaYehudi (particularly HaBayit HaYehudi) is going to have radically change at least part of their core platform principle. For instance, Jewish Home is committed to Annexing Area C of the West Bank and then keeping Areas A & B, as "Autonomous areas" linked through new high speed roads. Of course, while this goes along great with the new Rightist Likud it doesn't jive with the Prime Ministers very public statement reiterating his Bar-Ilan speech, which commits him to Two States, nor does it fit with the new coalition agreement that PM Netanyahu signed with HaTanuah and Tzipi Livni. As Naftali Bennett (Head of HaBayit HaYehudi) said:

"We've come to serve the nation in any fashion, from the coalition or the opposition," Bennett told a meeting of his party's convention in Jerusalem on Wednesday. "The only question is what this government's path will be: buying political time, or truly coping with fundamental problems? If the new government is interested in tackling the nation of Israel's real problems, we're in. But if the goal is to buy more time, we won't be. And that's not a disaster."

Regarding Livni, he said that he's "not interested" in Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas or any of the other PA officials who might negotiate with her. "What interests me is the nation of Israel - not Abu Mazen [Abbas], Abu Ala [Ahmed Qureia] or who knows who else will sit with Livni," he said. "They're not interesting. We're at a historic crossroads, and the ball is in the prime minister's court: Will we hold onto the Land of Israel and Jerusalem, or will we entrust the negotiations to someone who has already offered to divide the city of Jerusalem and conceded [the West Bank settlement bloc of Ariel?"

But also both parties Yesh Atid AND Jewish Home are even at odds with their own proposals on how to handle the Occupation and are only united in a desire to see some form of National Service happen. Of course then this precludes the joining of Shas and UTJ, unless Likud can work out some kind of compromise.

Now Likud has tried and drafted up a new compromise plan. However, BOTH Yesh Atid and Habayit HaYehudi have rejected that plan stating:

The plan, proposed by the head of Netanyahu's National Economic Council, Prof. Eugene Kandel, sets a goal of drafting 60 percent of Haredi (ultra-Orthodox ) men aged 18 to 24 within five years. But critics say it lacks teeth.

Yesh Atid and Habayit Hayehudi had previously announced that they oppose the plan, and on Wednesday they were joined by Kadima. At a meeting with Netanyahu, Kadima chairman Shaul Mofaz said he couldn't join a government whose proposal on the Haredi draft issue was akin to the one over which he quit Netanyahu's second government last summer.

Moreover, most of Hatnuah - the one party with which Netanyahu has so far signed a coalition agreement - is also expected to oppose the plan.

Thus if all these parties stand firm, Netanyahu will have trouble forming a coalition without agreeing to significantly tougher measures to get Haredi men into the army. Currently, 33 MKs - from Yesh Atid, Habayit Hayehudi and Kadima - have broadly agreed on the outlines of a much tougher plan than Kandel's. The Kandel plan is so far supported only by Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu's 31 MKs.

Well then, what's on the horizon? Right now the Likud Betainu coalition has 37 MK's. 31 from Likud-Betainu and 6 from HaTanuah. Even with both Haredi parties the best they can get to is 55 (11 from Shas and 7 from UTJ). To get there they would need either Labor, Yesh Atid, HaBayit HaYehudi, Meretz OR the Arab Parties to join the coalition. One can pretty much count out the Arab Parties and Meretz. That leaves Labor. There is no way that this would be a workable coalition longer than 6 months. There are just too many differences between the players.

Oh, and here is one other thing. The Knesset Channel just did a poll of the Israeli electorate. Apparently IF there were new elections (still an unlikely possibility). Yesh Atid  would become the new leading party with 30 seats, Likud would drop to 22 Seats, HaBayit HaYehudi would go up to 15 seats, and Labor would drop to 13 seats. G-d only knows what would happen to HaTanuah... I would bet their people go to Yesh Atid along with Mofaz' two seats.

Of course there would still be a mess in this case as well but now it would be on Yair Lapid to try to form a coalition and not Benjamin Netanyahu. Given Lapid's ego (remember, he stated that HE would be Prime Minister within 18 months), and political ambitions the news of this poll has to make him and Naftali Bennett sit up and take notice.

Will there be new elections? No one knows, but, whatever happens we are going to see some defining moments for the Israeli polity in the next few months.

"You Killed Everyone... You Failed"

Those were the words softly spoken in my ear... "You Killed Everyone, You Fail".

Simple... to the point. Everyone: Dead.

Let me go back to the beginning...

This last weekend I was taking another course (I had one seminar in already - this was another basic course) in Israeli Tactical Point Shooting with Pistols. We were working on Targeting, target identification, shooting accuracy, shooting and moving and other basic tactical skills with handguns.

My instructor was a decorated member of the Israeli Special Forces and Security professional who flew over here to give a series of seminars in the above mentioned skills.

In this particular phase we were working dealing with clearing rooms and making sure that we were firing from maximum covered positions. For this drill our guns were not loaded and all Ammunition was carefully out of the way.

So.. what happened? Well, the instructor told us to turn our backs while he set up a room with various targets inside. Then on his call: "Shots Fired", we were to race to the room and shoot whoever was a threat (the targets had various pictures of people on them, some with weapons, some who just looked suspicious). I was second in line.

The First person broke for the room - his trigger clicks signalling the shots. I heard the instructor say "Sorry, but you are dead" to him at the end. Then it was my turn.

On the call "Shots fired" - I broke for the room, drawing my pistol and charging for a point to not only have cover, but, for a point that could give a clear firing solution. I got that - hit my first target, and entered the room, going to one knee and firing as I went. With the Instructor yelling "FIRE, FIRE, FIRE" in my ear (to simulate pressure) I opened up on everything and anyone. They all died. I didn't even think twice about it - in that moment and in that second I was going to shoot anything that moved. Then after successfully firing on everyone, I yelled "Room Cleared". And that is when I heard my instructors voice softly telling me... "You Killed Everyone - You Failed"

I was dumbfounded... I couldn't imagine what I did wrong. I used my cover to perfection, dropping in the middle of the shots gave me an advantage, what... what had I done wrong? AND THEN IT HIT ME... I looked at the targets... Two of them (out of five) didn't have visible weapons. They had their hands in suspicious poses and in clothing BUT they were unarmed as far as I could tell. I would have killed potential hostages, I would have been just like the terrorists.

All of us... each one of us had failed the test by either killing the hostages (me and three others) OR by being shot not killing a terrorist. And this made me think... Here I am, training with police (there were a couple in class), ex-military, at least one security professional and a host of other people and I would have been almost as bad people doing the hostage taking. Because no matter what my intent... the hostages would have been dead anyhow.

And then I thought ... "My G-d, how can anyone not be in favor of Gun Control??? How can anyone ask that kids and teachers be slightly trained and then allowed to carry loaded weapons into a school?" I thought, "That is insane". I mean I have 32 hours of seminar time with active handling of a loaded weapon PLUS 3 years of martial arts and I would not have made the right decisions. I need a lot more training before I can even come close to addressing this situation.

YET, the NRA, their supporters and Conservatives seem to think that they, or their poorly trained but heavily armed citizens would never make those kinds of mistakes. It's all one thing when you see it on T.V. or see it in movies. You can pick out your targets. BUT.. in real life it's different. The pressure is enormous AND in this drill I wasn't firing live rounds OR being shot at. I just wanted to be successful and "save the day".

But Guns and being a hero are not like you see on T.V. Handguns are notoriously inaccurate beyond 10 meters (give or take). Even the best operators make mistakes with loaded guns. Imagine a pressure situation with people running everywhere, screaming, shots flying.... How would some non-professional make any kind of sound decision?

Might they stop a massacre from happening? It certainly is possible. Probably though, while they might shoot the gunman, they would also probably shoot a few other people as well. Not always, but, I would bet that the numbers would be high.

Guns are not toys and they are not for people who want to play "John Wayne". They may or may not help you in a home invasion, and if you have a gun in that situation you might just as easily shoot a family member as well as or instead of a robber.

I realize from this class the awesome power of a gun in the hands of someone who knows how to use it (I am just beginning). This is not something that should be widely available to just anyone without severe controls, as well as checks.

Maybe in our heads we are that brave hero from stage and screen and we all think we would do the right thing. We all want to be that person and honestly, there is nothing wrong with that... BUT, real life has a way of telling us that we might NOT be that "Hero".

One day, we might wake up and hear: "You killed everyone. You Failed". 

Among The Truthers: An Examination of Modern Conspiracy Theory

There is no subject which I am as simultaneously fascinated and appalled by as conspiracy theories.  The ability of so many people to truly believe the most absurd and toxic things both intrigues and terrifies me, for it is both profound insight into human nature, and at the same time a fundamental danger to a democratic society.  I have been searching for insight as to why conspiracy theories are so durable, and why they almost always contain an antisemitic element.  It turns out there are answers, especially to the later.

I was gripped by the excellent book Among The Truthers: A Journey Through Amerca's Growing Conspiracist Underground by Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay.   While 9/11 Truthers, as proponents of the most famous contemporary conspiracy theory, loom largest in the book, the book also addresses 'Birthers', anti-vaccine activists, JFK assassination deniers, and many others.  In fact, as I will explain below, none of these can be considered in isolation.  Kay's eclectic professional background in engineering, law, and journalism prepared him well for delving into the strange paranoid underworld and emerging with important insights.

The Problem Defined

Right off the bat Kay does something very useful, which is to define what a conspiracy theory is precisely.  This is important, to differentiate conspiracy theories, which are characterized by improbability and cult-like adherence, from real-life conspiracies that do actually exist in the world, such as how al-Qaeda really did conspire to carry out the 9/11 attacks.  Kay adopts the definition given by scholars Steve Clark and Brian Keeley:

A conspiracy theory traces important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal, and its proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their theory, but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of conspirators controlling most or all parts of society.

This definition gets at the essential difference between conspiracy theories and actual conspiracies, and also between conspiracy theories and run-of-the-mill paranoia.  Conspiracy theories adopt to contrary information only by widening the circle of supposed perpetrators.  For instance, when I have tried to tell moon landing deniers that the Apollo astronauts put mirrors on the lunar surface that scientists have since used to bounce lasers off of and precisely measure the distance to the moon, those conspiracy advocates simply decide that these scientists must also be in on the conspiracy and are lying about the research they have done.  When I tell Khazar Hoax advocates about genetic studies disproving their claim, they likewise decide that the scientists, research journals, and funding agencies must all be part of a nefarious Jewish plot.

Nothing New Here

A major insight that Kay delivers is quite profound: All modern conspiracy theories are the same.  All you have to do is switch out the names and some ultimately trivial details.

Fundamentally, conspiracy theories provide what Kay calls "an explanation for evil".  Rather than having to recognize the world as a place full of random, unpredictable, and largely unavoidable danger and pain, where a handsome President can be killed in Dallas by a lone loser with a rifle, or savages can fly planes into buildings on a Tuesday morning and kill thousands, or innocent children can come down with crippling autism, the conspiracy theorist can blame events on an evil conspiracy, with the hidden implication that without the conspiracy everything would be alright and the world would be benign.  It gives people, even sub-consciously, a way to account for evil in the world, without having to acknowledge the world as fundamentally a random unforgiving place where basically nobody is safe.

In addition to A) providing an explanation for evil, all modern conspiracy theories share the following characteristics:

B) Unity of evil:  Conspiracy theories claim that distinct and opposing or competing forces in the world are actually unified, and their outward oppositional nature is only a ruse.  For the conspiracist, there must only be one source of evil in the Universe.  9/11 Truthers insists that Islamists and the US Government (and often the Mossad) are all in league.  Anti-vacciners insist that the FDA, pharmaceutical companies, and major research hospitals and journals, which are often adversarial or competitive at times, are actually one in the same.  The number of adversarial groups that are actually acting in concert in the minds of Birthers, from hospital administrators to the sheriff's office, is mind-boggling.  And in the Illuminati / New World Order fantasies which unite all of these and more, all nefarious actors in all of the sub-plots are ultimately united.

C) Hypercompetence:  Conspiracy theories attribute superhuman and ultimately impossible abilities to the supposed conspirators.  This is most obvious is in the claims, common to all modern conspiracy theories, that hundreds or thousands or even tens of thousands of people can keep an unbelievably profound secret for decades.  How many people would have needed to be in on a plot to stage the 9/11 attacks as a US government plot?  When you consider everyone within the airlines, the military, the demolition experts who supposedly rigged the buildings, the investigators both within the government and without, and so in, it is an enormous number of people.  It is utterly superhuman for absolutely nobody to blow the whistle in all this time.  Even more remarkable would be that happening for the 50 years since the JFK assassination or the 45 years since the moon landing, which considering that the Apollo program employed 400,000 people, is incredible.

It is not just in ability to keep a secret, but in every realm of human achievement, from science to technology to public relations that conspirators are apparently not subject to the constraints of mere mortals.

D) Lack of nuance:  To the conspiracist, the supposed (unified) conspirators are evil incarnate, without the normal range of human emotions and opinions.  To cite an obvious example, anti-vaccers believe that tens of thousands of scientists and doctors both in the private sector and government - people who in reality choose to go into science out of a thirst for knowledge and into medicine out of either a love for people or money - are in reality pure monsters who want nothing other than to afflict children and families with autism.  Birthers can't conceive of a doctor, county registrar, or small town newspaperman in 1960 simply wanting to do his job, instead insisting that all of these people and others plotted, for some unknown reason, to have an 18 year old single mother travel to the other side of the world to give birth.

The recipe for a modern conspiracy theory, then, is as follows:  1) Take an event or trend of events that reveals the arbitrary nature of misfortune in the world, and instead attribute it only as the result of nefarious actions of a powerful group.  2) The powerful group must include many forces in society, some of which appear to be in opposition or competition but are actually unified.  3) The evil and power of the unified group is boundless.  4) Any facts that contradict the hypothesis are simply evidence of the reach and penetration of the evil group into whatever generated the fact.

Really, Nothing New Here

Kay brings it all home with yet another a very interesting insight, which addresses one of the perplexing things about conspiracy theories that I have always noted:  Why do they almost always have an antisemitic component?

The reason, as Key shows, is that not only are all modern conspiracy theories the same, but they are all based on the Elders of Zion.

"The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion" was the first modern conspiracy theory, that is, the first one that fits the mold discussed above, and it served as a template for all to come.  The book was a hoax, appearing in Europe in the chaos following World War I and the Russian Revolution, which purported to be the transcripts of the meeting of a secret group of Jews that run the world.  The supposed transcripts revealed the Jews' secret plot for world domination, in which they would plant the ideas of liberalism and secularism in order to seed catastrophic events such as the French Revolution, Russian Revolution, and various wars which would eventually allow them to take over.

This contained all of the elements discussed above:  An explanation for bad events, and a group of unified, supremely evil, and hypercompetent (engineering the French Revolution!) conspirators behind it.  It is no surprise then, that since the 20th century's most notorious antisemitic tract was the blueprint for all modern conspiracy theories, that all modern conspiracy theories would contain an element of antisemitism.  From the supposed Mossad and "Israelis who stayed home from work" connections to 9/11, to the explicitly Jewish connotations of the Illuminati, to the Khazar Hoax and the USS Liberty Hoax, antisemitism is a staple of modern conspiracy theories, and no wonder.

What Can Be Done?

Kay presents alarming statistics on the number of Americans subscribing to various conspiracy theories, and anecdotally, I think it may be worse than even the statistics paint.  I would estimate that certainly a significant minority, and possibly a majority, of the self-declared "reality based community" at blogs such as Huffington Post and Daily Kos believe in some form of 9/11 Trutherism, anti-vaccism, the Khazar hoax, "ZOG", or another modern conspiracy theory (See here and here for some examples).  On the political right it is just as bad, with large numbers of people believing in Birtherism, the New World Order, the NAFTA superhighway, and other nonsense, even at a supposedly mainstream conservative forum such as Human Events.

As Kay points out, and anyone who forays into the jungle of major online blogs and comment boards can attest, it is basically impossible to convince a conspiracy theorist otherwise once they have gone down that road.  Furthermore, once someone has embraced one conspiracy theory, they will likely embrace more, for as discussed here, they are all essentially the same anyway.

Matters are made worse because of our contemporary media landscape, where, thanks to the decline of the traditional print and broadcast media and the rise of blogs and cable pundits, people can now go an arbitrarily long time without ever encountering a dissenting viewpoint.  This is a problem that of course extends far beyond conspiracy theories, but it certainly helps to feed them.  When both the left wing and the right wing speak dismissively of the "mainstream media" and largely refuse to accept any facts or opinions presented therein, the opportunities for moderation of extreme views are few and far between.

It would all be a laughing matter if conspiracy theories were not a big deal, if we could simply make fun of theorists' zeal and the implausibility of their claims.  But conspiracy theories and their peddlers erode the very heart of a democratic society, which depends on a certain amount of public trust in our public institutions.  Not blind faith, certainly, but also not complete dismissal of the value of elected governments or the principle of voluntary associations.  People who believe elections are useless because the government is controlled by a secret group, or that professional qualifications such as mechanical engineer or doctor are useless because those professionals are part of a giant nefarious plot, do not make for good citizens in any sense.

What then, is to be done, about the proliferation of conspiracism?  This may be the point where there are no good answers at present, given human nature and our media landscape.  Kay makes a modest proposal for a high school or college course about conspiracy theories, teaching the Elders of Zion as a case-study since it is a conspiracy theory which few people believe anymore (except in the Arab world, of course).  I think that this might be a mistake that would simply lead to its re-popularization.  Instead, I would like to see a new conspiracy theory created from whole cloth following the formula - perhaps that the atomic bombing of Japan was a hoax and never actually happened, and then that taught as a case-study in a new high school or college course.  It isn't a magic bullet, but it would be a start.

ISRAELI POLITICS - WELCOME TO THE THUNDERDOME

In his first speech as a Member of Knesset, Naftali Bennett, leader of the HaBayit HaYehudi Party may have opened a door to Centrist coalition while inadvertently slamming the door on a Rightist one.

In his speech Bennett stated:

<em>"We must know that the land of our forefathers is not a piece of real estate, and that there is no need for me to speak of geo-strategic depth to explain why this is important to me.

"I live in Ra'anana and feel safe because my brothers protect me from the mountains of Binyamin and Samaria. There is no room in our divine little piece of land for another country. It won’t happen, but friends, before any discussion on the territories, it must be said that the Land of Israel belongs to the nation of Israel."</em>

 This coming the day after coalition meetings between Prime Minister Netanuyahu and Bennett AND a day after Prime Minister Netanyahu said this:

 "I believe that a framework to peace (with the Palestinians) is what I outlined in my speech in Bar-Ilan University – two states for two peoples: A demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state." 

But that's not all... in a response to the Prime Minister,  Yair Shamir an incoming MK from Likud-Betainu had this to say:

“Netanyahu’s Bar Ilan speech was never approved by the Likud party or the government of Israel. The idea of a two state solution is impossible to implement,” Shamir said.

 And who exactly is Yair Shamir:

Shamir, the son of the late Likud prime minister Yitzhak Shamir, is a former IAF pilot. He said he would be very pleased to serve as defense minister in the next government, but is widely expected to be given a senior domestic portfolio. He is the No. 2 to Avigdor Liberman on the Yisrael Beytenu list, and No. 4 on the joint Likud-Beytenu list; Liberman, the former foreign minister, will not sit in the cabinet while he’s fighting fraud and breach of trust charges...

At the same time we have potential partner to Likud-Beitanu, Yesh Atid's leader Yair Lapid, saying the following: 

“Both parties understand that they have to go back to the Roadmap,” Lapid told American Jewish leaders in Jerusalem – a reference to an outline laid out by president George W. Bush. “We have to jumpstart [the process]… People have to understand that we’re talking about the two-state solution.”...

 ....“I mean, I look at these territories as part of Greater Israel, but I understand that this dream might be postponed for another 1,000 years,” he said, “because the other option is having a country that is not Jewish. I want to live in a Jewish country and in order to live in a Jewish country, I have to somehow… I don’t want to say get rid of, but separate myself from the 3.3 million Palestinians we have right now between the [Mediterranean] Sea and the eastern border of Israel.”

 SO... what do we have.. let's sort some of this out as Secretary of State Kerry heads there this month and with  President Obama heading over to the Middle East on March 20th. Oh yeah and Outgoing Defense Minister Ehud Barak paid Washington a visit the other day. Only thing is that no one knows why, but he is meeting with American Defense AND Intelligence personal. Oh yeah, and while this is happening PM's chief negotiator with the Palestinians Isaac Molcho AND National Security Adviser Yaakov Amridor are also heading to Washington.

Ok.. back to sorting... We have the P.M trying to build a coalition. To his left, he has potential partners in Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid), Tzipi Livni (HaTanuah), and Shaul Mofaz (Kadima), all of whom insist on a Two State solution and all of home say that it is important. 

To his Right (and within his own party) he has the Right Wing of his party who won't back him up on this and who feel that a Two State Solution cannot get done and he has Naftali Bennett (a natural coalition partner to Likud-Betainu but Bibi is reported to not stand the man). He can make a coalition with Yesh Atid, HaTanuah and Kadima and possibly Labor IF he gets serious about the Peace Talks. OR he can make a coalition with Yesh Atid and HaBayit HaYehudi, would be immediately at odds over Two States. OR he can spin Right, and co-opt the religious parties but then he runs into issues where the Haredi Draft comes into play.

I am not sure how any of this is going to produce a stable government or one that lasts for more than 15 minutes.

For political observers the Israeli "Thunderdome" is in full swing. Grab some popcorn and watch the show. It should produce some very interesting scenes.

Netanyahu's Kobayashi Maru

From the Urban Dictionary

Kobayashi Maru - A no-win situation or scenario, in which every action is effectively countered by a force either seen or unseen

The Kobayashi Maru was a fictional test in the Star Trek series of a "no-win" situation. The test was to assess a cadet's fitness to deal with an impossible situation.

It seems that Israeli Prime Minister faces his own Kobayashi Maru - better known as his version of "The Two State Solution". What makes this Netanyahu's version of a "no-win" situation? Due to the fact that his proposals are an unacceptable alternative to almost EVERYONE, Israeli, Palestinian or member of the World Community.

The Prime Minister has NOT laid out an official plan but given all of his statements on the subject one can speculate what his map might look like. It seems that Netanyahu is proposing something akin to a combination of the Olmert Plan (see map here) AND the Allon Plan with a few changes and additions two of which are that Jerusalem remain undivided under Israeli Control and as Israel's International Capitol and that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People.

So what makes this a Kobayashi Maru Test? Why is it a "no-win" situation for the PM?

Well first off (and let's get the most obvious issue or "objection") - In any negotiation there needs to be an agreement from both sides on a final plan. To get that agreement from the Palestinians, they would have to voluntarily give up on any part of East Jerusalem, including Islam's third holiest shrine the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque. NOW... one can make the case that for the most part that under Israeli Rule worshipers have been free to exercise their religious freedom while the same cannot be said when other religions had ruled over Jewish Holy Sites. Still, no Arab leader could voluntarily give up Jerusalem and expect to live until the end of the day.

President Abbas, actually agreed to split E. Jerusalem (as indicated in the Palestine Papers), however, as he never took this back to the Palestinian people and walked away from negotiations one will never know if this would have been accepted by the general populace.

Second, The Palestinians would also have to renounce their perceived "Right of Return" as laid out in U.N. Res. 194. NOW, according to the Palestine Paper by accepting Israel as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people. This is a flash point in negotiations and it is something that is of vital importance to both sides. For the Israelis to allow "Palestinian Right of Return" would mean the end of their State as a "Jewish State", and for the Palestinians to give this up would mean "giving up" on the refugee population and banishing them to the tender mercies of their Arab brethren in the surrounding nations.

Again, President Abbas indicated (according to the Palestine Papers) that he would indeed compromise here - HOWEVER like with Jerusalem he was hesitant to take it back to his populace knowing full well that this would never be acceptable to a vast majority.

This is not to mention that the presumed Netanyahu border outline leaves the Palestine State with few resources including most importantly water, no control over their borders and a demilitarized state. As previously stated, this would be a very "hard sell" for Abbas and the Palestinian leadership and quite possibly one that they could not agree too even if they wanted.

Now, the PM and the Israeli negotiating team my feel that they have the Palestinians "Over a Barrel", and to degree they do, of course the Palestinians also feel they have the Israelis "Over a Barrel". How so? Well, if the Palestinians don't negotiate, they can't have a State. Something that they want and in my opinion quite badly need. At the same time if they don't have a State, they force Israel into a situation where the Israelis bleed manpower and treasure to maintain an unpopular Occupation. They force Israel into the position of becoming a permanent Occupying power, a position that would eventually in turn severely strain support for Israel with even it's strongest allies in the U.S. and Europe.

This position of becoming a permanent Occupying power would then force Israel into a demographic nightmare given birthrates of Jews relative to Palestinians. It would not be long until Jews were a minority in the area that they ruled over. THUS, this would destroy Israel's democracy and force an almost permanent civil war on the nation.

Of course the Israelis could then forcibly remove the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank, but, for some odd reason, I think that level of ethnic cleansing would bring on the next Arab Israeli War, and most likely Israel would not have the backing of the it's principle allies.

BUT ok.... let's say the "Age of Miracles" returns AND the Palestinians agree to the Prime Ministers plan. What then? Well the PM's own party turned hard right in the last election lifting noted Right Wing politicians Gideon Saar, and Danny Danon to more powerful positions while relative moderates like Dan Meriador were purged. These hard rightists have said in no uncertain terms that they would not accept anything less than Israeli control over the entire West Bank (Judea and Samaria as they call it).

Would the Rightists give up on the Occupation of Hebron? As one Rightist blogger likes to put it, would the YESHA give up on telling Jews that they have the right to live in what they consider Jewish land in Judea and Samaria? Giving up the settlements in Gaza was traumatic enough (remember Gush Katif?) one can imagine that officially giving up sovereignty over the Territories would lead to a government split at the best and (more likely) Civil War at worst.

Now it is again the both sides in a Catch-22. The Palestinians get what they want (sort of) but who is to guarantee that radical factions like Hamas don't get control of the Palestinian polity, and start a conflict (like Cast Lead). After all it is in the Hamas Charter that they must kill all the Jews and destroy Israel. Then, like in Gaza Israel would be facing an enemy shelling Jerusalem and Tel Aviv from even closer range. What Israeli Prime Minister could agree to something like that and keep his job much less his life (witness Yitzhak Rabin)?

Basically, there's no good way through this without a miracle or more properly the backing of a Super Power to make a deal happen. For the Israelis to make this deal happen they need to have the assurances and the actual back-up of a major military power to assure their security. Something along the lines of a mutual defense pact with a nation like the U.S. and economic security arrangements with both of it's major economic partners,. the U.S. and the Europeans.

For the Palestinians they need to make sure that people will be there to help them build their economy and a stable political system that would not be subject to the authoritarian impulses of the their present leadership. They would need to strike a deal around the Harm al Sharif and Al-Aqsa where they do not relinquish control of their Holy Sites AND they would have to find an alternative solution to the Refugee's.

It's like doing a coin flip with the devil where he smiles and says: "Heads I win, Tails you lose", and you know it's true. Are there ways out. Possibly.... Is it likely now. Not. At. All.

Secretary of State Kerry gets tough on Iran

In his first public address regarding Iran, new Secretary of State John Kerry has words from the Administration regarding Iran:

"We are prepared to let diplomacy be the victor in this confrontation over their nuclear program," Kerry said after meeting with Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird. "The president has made it clear that he is prepared to talk about a peaceful nuclear program." 

Kerry also said: "Iran has a choice: they have to prove to the world that it is peaceful and we are prepared to sit responsibly and negotiate how they can do that and how we can all be satisfied."....

...Kerry also said that Iran's recent revelation that it would vastly increase its pace of uranium enrichment, which can make both reactor fuel and the fissile core of warheads, is "concerning" and "disturbing."

"The president has made it clear that his preference is to have a diplomatic solution, but if he cannot get there, he is prepared to do whatever is necessary to make certain that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon," he said.

 
Now, this is clearly a diplomatic "shot across the bow" to Iran. Right now it seems it is meant purely as a rhetorical threat as the U.S. in reality is actually going through force reduction in the Persian Gulf and rotating a carrier group OUT of the region.

It comes on the heels of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini's rhetoric stating:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's supreme leader Thursday strongly rejected proposals for direct talks with the United States, effectively quashing suggestions for a breakthrough one-on-one dialogue on the nuclear standoff and potentially other issues..... 

...."Talks will not solve any problems," Khamenei said in the statement posted Thursday following a meeting with air force commanders.

"You are holding a gun against Iran saying, 'Talks or you'll fire.' The Iranian nation will not be frightened by such threats," he added in apparent reference to U.S. sanctions over Iran's nuclear efforts.

However, this bellicose tone however, has not necessarily been supported through their actions.
First off, while the Bulgarians found Hizbollah guilty in an attack on a civilian bus in Burgas, Bulgaria that wounded a number of Israelis Iran has been quick to distance itself from it's client's actions.
Second, The Iranians publicly rebuffed Syrian requests for action after Israeli warplanes attacked a Syrian transfer of Soviet SA-117 missles to Hizbollah as well as a chemical weapons research facility.
Lately Iranian rhetoric has simply not matched their deeds. SO... what can we take away from this ratcheting up of rhetoric from the U.S.

Well.... (and I have been very wrong before), I think this is a signal that the U.S. is about to take an enhanced DIPLOMATIC role in the region. Now note that I say Diplomatic rather than Military.
Why do I say this? Well I say this due to the fact that the U.S. is in Force Reduction and Balancing the Budget mode, so ADDING a conflict in the region would do neither of those things. Additionally, the administration is discussing peaceable Nuclear energy as a "live with" situation.

At the same time perhaps the unconfirmed "blast" at Fordo was a message to Iran regarding the realities of their quest to enrich Uranium to weapons grade levels.

What then does the U.S. taking the DIPLOMATIC initiative mean... Well, it means that the President is putting the U.S. out in front on both a political and economic track to isolate the Iranian regime.

So far, aside from the Civil War in Syria (that is sure to cost the Iranians that nation), there are grumblings in Lebanon against Hizbollah (an Iranian client), as Israeli Jets fly mock sorties over the country in response to Hizbollah threats. At the same time the Government of Egypt who just had productive talks with Iran is facing popular dissension in the streets.

So is the U.S. signalling a move to enhance it's standing in the region through more covert means and with use of it's allies?

As far as economically, my assumption from Kerry's statements are that should the Iranians NOT "come to the table", they will face another more severe round of sanctions in addition to the ones that are beginning to strongly effect the Iranian economy and causing grumbling amongst the populace.
What I don't see is an all out military strike just yet, and honestly maybe not ever. BUT I do think things are about to get extremely "interesting" in the Persian Gulf. 

Mr. Obama and the Belagan

Here is the word of the day: Belagan:

Noun

1.

balagan - a word for chaos or fiasco borrowed from modern Hebrew (where it is a loan word from Russian); "it was utter and complete balagan!"

What is one of the most difficult intellectual endeavors on the Planet? Trying to figure out the politics of the Middle East. Nothing but nothing about this area is clear and nothing but nothing about this area makes a ton of sense. Into this fray - the President Obama steps. Living up to a campaign promise made during his first term the President will be heading to the Middle East to visit both the Israelis and Palestinian leadership (well the P.A. part of it)

Of course, in typical fashion for anything in the Middle East, nothing about this visit seems to make sense. One side (the Americans) state that the visit is for the President to "strengthen the bonds between Israel and the U.S.", One side (the Palestinians) are insisting that the U.S. visit be used to "pressure" the Israelis into halting the settlement process and force the Israelis to negotiate with him for a State and finally One side (the Israelis), are saying that that the President is both coming with a plan and a proposal for a summit between the Israelis and Palestinians AND Not coming with anything (is this a surprise to anyone?)

Speaking the other day President Obama had this to say:

“Given how important I think the situation in the Middle East is, and our partnership with Israel which is stronger than it’s ever been, when I go to Israel I want to make sure that we’re actually moving something forward,”

and American Ambassador Dan Shapiro added:

“President Obama is not coming with conditions or demands. He is coming to confer with all our partners about problems and challenges we are dealing with in the region.” He said Obama would not seek “a specific result” in any discussions related to “bringing Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiation table.”

The White House reiterated this through:

White House spokesman Jay Carney confirmed to reporters on Wednesday that Obama would bring no peace proposal with him, and will instead focus on discussions on issues of mutual concern to Israel and the US.

The timing of the visit is tied to the new administrations in both Israel and the United States, Carney said.

Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren speaking to MSNBC reiterated that position saying:

Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, told MSNBC that the purpose of the visit was not to relaunch peace talks.

 “The White House has made very clear that the purpose of the trip is to strengthen an already historic bond between Israel and the United States. I think it sent a powerful message to the Middle East at a time of great uncertainty and upheaval throughout the region, and I think that is the purpose of the trip,” Oren said

 BUT..... Outgoing Deputy PM Danny Ayalon contradicted them by with this:

Israel’s outgoing deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon said earlier Wednesday that Obama wants to host a summit between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during the visit, which is tentatively set for late March or early April. Ayalon said he was “certain” preparations for such a summit were already under way.

 AND in two related stories:

Yitzhak Molcho, the Netanyahu administration’s special envoy to Ramallah, will reportedly be dispatched to the US next week to discuss ways of advancing talks with the Palestinians, adding to speculation that a peace plan is in the works.

 as well as this from Haaretz:

 A senior member of Netanyahu's Likud party who is involved in the coalition talks said Tuesday that Netanyahu is considering acceding to Hatnuah leader Tzipi Livni's demand to appoint her as minister in charge of talks with the Palestinians. 

 SO... what is the truth of this?

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has come under heavy fire from some own members of his party. Outgoing Deputy Prime Minister (Likud) Dan Meriador surprised everyone today with some harsh criticism of the Netanyahu settlement policy.

In a setback for Netanyahu, a close political ally criticized Israel's settlement policies, saying continued construction deep inside the West Bank has undermined Israel's credibility and could threaten the country's long-term survival.

"We could pay a great price," Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, a senior member of Netanyahu's Likud Party, warned on Israeli Radio....

....
But on the radio, Meridor said the government was sending mixed signals to the world by speaking in favor of Palestinian independence while settling Israelis on lands claimed by the Palestinians.

He said Israel should limit construction to major settlement "blocs" and existing Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem, and halt construction in outlying areas. Israel is expected to keep these settlements under any future peace deal.

"There is a lack of consistency between our claim of wanting two states ... and the fact that we don't limit building to the blocs only," he said. By sending this mixed message, "we cast doubt on our intentions and statements, and this is costing us a very high price."

Meridor stressed that establishment of a Palestinian state is in Israel's interests. Without a partition, most demographers believe that the Arab population under Israeli control could soon outnumber Jews.

 And....

The Haaretz daily on Thursday, citing two unidentified officials, quoted Netanyahu's national security adviser, Yaakov Amidror, as warning that Israel's settlement policies were hurting its standing with key allies.

"It's impossible to explain the issue of settlement construction anyplace in the world," he was quoted as saying. "Construction in the settlements has become a diplomatic problem and is causing Israel to lose support even among its friends in the West." 

Meanwhile the Palestinians say that they want to the President to visit and put some heat on the Israelis to end settlements and get back to the negotiating table. Their two demands: Start negotiations based on the the 1967 borders (and they have expressed willingness to compromise there in the past) AND cease ALL settlement construction, even in the established settlement blocs.

Expressing support for a two-state solution ahead of US President Barack Obama’s spring visit, senior Palestinian official Jibril Rajoub said Thursday that “the Americans are the only ones who can build a bridge to peace.”

IMPORTANT NOTE:: Rajoub was the guy who said this: "Asked about leaving blocs of Jewish settlements in the West Bank as part of the framework of the two-state solution, Rajoub rejected the idea out of  hand. “Absolutely not. There is not room for even one settler” beyond the pre-1967 lines, he said. The fact that it was even discussed at at earlier negotiations at Camp David was a “mistake,”

and:

"We believe he has good intentions, but in order for him to succeed, he should realize the reasons for the failure of the previous round of talks and avoid them," said Mohammed Ishtayeh, a senior Palestinian negotiator. "Mainly he needs to get involved personally and put real pressure on Israel......

.....Ishtayeh said the Palestinians would not budge on their demands for a settlement freeze or their insistence that the 1967 borders remain the baseline for negotiations. He also ruled out an interim agreement while final borders can be worked out.

SO... what's really happening. Well if it were my guess - and I think it is here.... I think that there is something in the works regarding at least a re-opening in the Peace Process. The fact that Likud-Betainu is talking to Tzipi Livni and has had two meetings with the Center and Left parties BEFORE he has even met with the Rightists is telling. Also, sending Molcho to Washington to brief Secretary of State Kerry prior to his visit later this month I think means something is afoot.

It may not be much and I would bet money that it will not amount to much but one never knows. There is a great deal of instability in the region with the Iranians flexing diplomatic muscle and heading to Egypt to make nice with President Morsi along with the electoral situation in Jordan, where the King faces growing radicalism and opposition to his rule, to the chaos in Syria and the increasing power of Hizbollah in Lebanon.

So, I imagine that the President is heading there to try to stabilize the Israeli / Palestinian situation as he tries to deal with the mess that heading his way from the increasing radicalization of political movements in the Arab World. But it is not only the Arab World. The American policy has long been one of support for Two States for Two Peoples. The increased settlements in the West Bank (Occupied Territory), as Meriador points out do cause an issue with the international community and honestly they will eventually cause an existential crises within Israel itself as the demographics of the country would change with annexation or permanent occupation of the Arab areas of the West Bank.

On the other hand, the Palestinians themselves refuse to recognize Israel as it was formed to be (as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People) AND the political situation within the Palestinian polity is questionable at best, with Hamas gaining more power again after their mini-War in November. The Israelis, quite understandably are not really willing to give up a lot of land and then having to deal with Hamas (a force dedicated to Israel's destruction) all of a sudden sitting in some very strategic areas. 

Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama are stepping into a Belagan - I say Kol HaKvod ("All the respect" - literally, "Total respect - Way to go" figuratively ). I hope they have some success here so that Israel and America can move forward and so Israelis and Palestinians can find a way to make peace (as unlikely as it seems).