[h=1]Netanyahu’s fear mongering[/h] [h=2]European leaders balk at statement their countries no longer safe for Jews[/h]
Hamilton Spectator By Gwynne Dyer
SEE MOREarticles from this author
"We're not waiting around here to die," said Johan Dumas, one of the survivors of the siege at the kosher supermarket during the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris in January. He had hidden with others in a basement cold room as the Islamist gunman roamed overhead and killed four of the hostages. So, said Dumas, he was moving to Israel to be safe.
It's not really that simple. The 17 victims of the terrorist attacks included some French Christians, a Muslim policeman, four Jews, and probably a larger number of people who would have categorized themselves as "none of the above." It was a Muslim employee in the supermarket who showed Dumas and other Jewish customers where to hide, and then went back upstairs to distract the gunman. And the Middle East isn't exactly safe for Jews.
Dumas has been through a terrifying experience. He now feels like a target in France, and no amount of reassurance from the French government that it will protect its Jewish citizens will change his mind. But Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu didn't help much either.
What Netanyahu said after the Paris attacks was this: "This week, a special team of ministers will convene to advance steps to increase immigration from France and other countries in Europe that are suffering from terrible anti-Semitism. All Jews who want to immigrate to Israel will be welcomed here warmly and with open arms. We will help you in your absorption here in our country, which is also your country."
He was at it again after a Jewish volunteer guarding a synagogue in Copenhagen was one of the two fatal victims of last week's terrorist attack in Denmark. "Jews have been murdered again on European soil only because they were Jews," he said, "and this wave of terrorist attacks — including murderous anti-Semitic attacks — is expected to continue."
"Of course, Jews deserve protection in every country but we say to Jews, to our brothers and sisters: Israel is your home. We are preparing and calling for the absorption of mass immigration from Europe." As you might imagine, this did not go down well with European leaders who were being told that their countries were so anti-Semitic that they are no longer safe for Jews.
It is true that five of the 19 people killed in these two terrorist attacks in Europe since the new year were Jewish, which is highly disproportionate. But it is also true that the killers in all cases were Islamist extremists, who also exist in large numbers in and around Israel.
French President François Hollande said: "I will not just let what was said in Israel pass, leading people to believe that Jews no longer have a place in Europe and in France in particular." In Denmark Chief Rabbi Jair Melchior rebuked Netanyahu, saying that "terror is not a reason to move to Israel."
The chair of Britain's parliamentary committee against anti-Semitism, John Mann, attacked Netanyahu's statement that the only place Jews could now be safe was Israel.
"Mr. Netanyahu made the same remarks in Paris — it's just crude electioneering. It's no coincidence that there's a general election in Israel coming up ... We're not prepared to tolerate a situation in this country or in any country in Europe where any Jews feel they have to leave."
It IS crude electioneering on Netanyahu's part — but it is also true that even in Britain, where there have been no recent terrorist attacks, Jews are worried. Statistically, Jews are at greater risk from terrorism in Israel, but it's much scarier being a Jewish minority in a continent where Jews were killed in death camps only 70 years ago.
Given Europe's long and disgraceful history of anti-Semitism, it's not surprising that such sentiments persist among a small minority of the population. But at least in Western Europe (which is where most European Jews live) the great majority of people regard anti-Semitism as shameful, and most governments give synagogues and Jewish community centres special protection.
What European Jews fear is not their neighbours in general, but radicalized young Islamists among their Muslim fellow citizens. The Muslim minorities in the larger Western European countries range between 4 and 10 per cent of the population. If only one in a hundred of them is an Islamist then Jews do face a threat in those countries.
But it is a very small threat. Nine Jews have been killed by Islamist terrorists in the European Union in the past year in three separate incidents (Belgium, France and Denmark). The Jewish population of the EU is just over one million, mostly living in France, the United Kingdom and Germany.
Nine Jewish deaths by terrorism in a year in the EU is deplorable, but it hardly constitutes a good reason for encouraging mass emigration to Israel. Still, Netanyahu has an election to fight, and this sort of thing goes down well in Israel.
Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries
Hamilton Spectator By Gwynne Dyer
SEE MOREarticles from this author
"We're not waiting around here to die," said Johan Dumas, one of the survivors of the siege at the kosher supermarket during the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris in January. He had hidden with others in a basement cold room as the Islamist gunman roamed overhead and killed four of the hostages. So, said Dumas, he was moving to Israel to be safe.
It's not really that simple. The 17 victims of the terrorist attacks included some French Christians, a Muslim policeman, four Jews, and probably a larger number of people who would have categorized themselves as "none of the above." It was a Muslim employee in the supermarket who showed Dumas and other Jewish customers where to hide, and then went back upstairs to distract the gunman. And the Middle East isn't exactly safe for Jews.
Dumas has been through a terrifying experience. He now feels like a target in France, and no amount of reassurance from the French government that it will protect its Jewish citizens will change his mind. But Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu didn't help much either.
What Netanyahu said after the Paris attacks was this: "This week, a special team of ministers will convene to advance steps to increase immigration from France and other countries in Europe that are suffering from terrible anti-Semitism. All Jews who want to immigrate to Israel will be welcomed here warmly and with open arms. We will help you in your absorption here in our country, which is also your country."
He was at it again after a Jewish volunteer guarding a synagogue in Copenhagen was one of the two fatal victims of last week's terrorist attack in Denmark. "Jews have been murdered again on European soil only because they were Jews," he said, "and this wave of terrorist attacks — including murderous anti-Semitic attacks — is expected to continue."
"Of course, Jews deserve protection in every country but we say to Jews, to our brothers and sisters: Israel is your home. We are preparing and calling for the absorption of mass immigration from Europe." As you might imagine, this did not go down well with European leaders who were being told that their countries were so anti-Semitic that they are no longer safe for Jews.
It is true that five of the 19 people killed in these two terrorist attacks in Europe since the new year were Jewish, which is highly disproportionate. But it is also true that the killers in all cases were Islamist extremists, who also exist in large numbers in and around Israel.
French President François Hollande said: "I will not just let what was said in Israel pass, leading people to believe that Jews no longer have a place in Europe and in France in particular." In Denmark Chief Rabbi Jair Melchior rebuked Netanyahu, saying that "terror is not a reason to move to Israel."
The chair of Britain's parliamentary committee against anti-Semitism, John Mann, attacked Netanyahu's statement that the only place Jews could now be safe was Israel.
"Mr. Netanyahu made the same remarks in Paris — it's just crude electioneering. It's no coincidence that there's a general election in Israel coming up ... We're not prepared to tolerate a situation in this country or in any country in Europe where any Jews feel they have to leave."
It IS crude electioneering on Netanyahu's part — but it is also true that even in Britain, where there have been no recent terrorist attacks, Jews are worried. Statistically, Jews are at greater risk from terrorism in Israel, but it's much scarier being a Jewish minority in a continent where Jews were killed in death camps only 70 years ago.
Given Europe's long and disgraceful history of anti-Semitism, it's not surprising that such sentiments persist among a small minority of the population. But at least in Western Europe (which is where most European Jews live) the great majority of people regard anti-Semitism as shameful, and most governments give synagogues and Jewish community centres special protection.
What European Jews fear is not their neighbours in general, but radicalized young Islamists among their Muslim fellow citizens. The Muslim minorities in the larger Western European countries range between 4 and 10 per cent of the population. If only one in a hundred of them is an Islamist then Jews do face a threat in those countries.
But it is a very small threat. Nine Jews have been killed by Islamist terrorists in the European Union in the past year in three separate incidents (Belgium, France and Denmark). The Jewish population of the EU is just over one million, mostly living in France, the United Kingdom and Germany.
Nine Jewish deaths by terrorism in a year in the EU is deplorable, but it hardly constitutes a good reason for encouraging mass emigration to Israel. Still, Netanyahu has an election to fight, and this sort of thing goes down well in Israel.
Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries
The Shabbos Goy Guesser continues to show he's a "proud supporter of Israel" while attacking Her every chance he gets.
Into the fray: Coup d’état?
By Martin Sherman, JPOST
Fifty-one percent of the respondents polled in the survey indicated that Binyamin Netanyahu was the candidate most suited to be prime minister. 28% stated that Isaac “Buji” Herzog is most suited… – Channel 2 poll, February 16
Israel’s democracy is under assault… The greatest danger to Israeli democracy emanates from those masquerading as its champions. – From “Distorting democracy,” The Jerusalem Post, July 28, 2011
Over the last few weeks, Israeli democracy has been under brutal and sustained attack in a desperate effort to subvert the will of the people.
What we are witnessing is, in effect, little less than an attempt at a bloodless coup d’état – conducted, not by the military, but by the messianic, indeed manic, mainstream media, buttressed by affiliated like-minded civil society elites (blowhards like Guesser), in a frenzied effort to impose their minority worldview on the nation.
Enraged by their inability to rally sufficient public support, on substantive policy issues, to unseat the object of their visceral enmity, Benjamin Netanyahu, and nonplussed by the tenacity of his “delinquent” hold on the premiership, despite their undisguised loathing, his political rivals have despaired of removing him from office by normal electoral means.
Instead, they have descended into an unprecedented nadir of mean-spirited malevolence in Israeli public life.
Rather than engaging in a substantive debate on how to conduct the affairs of the nation, they have embarked on a dishonorable – the less charitable might say “disgraceful” – attempt to oust a prime minister by means of a maelstrom of petty and pernicious ad hominem attacks. These have been directed not only against Netanyahu but, principally, against his spouse, who – whatever her character defects may (or may not) be, is hardly a relevant factor in determining his ability to govern.
Ignoring ISIS, Iran and Islamists…
Devoid of any persuasive policy alternative of real substance, and of alternative candidate of authentic stature, Netanyahu’s left-leaning detractors have mobilized to exploit their unelected positions of power and privilege to launch a massive media blitz against him and his wife – with the naked intention of degrading his political stature by denigrating his/her alleged personal excesses.
Thus, in a country gearing for elections, facing the specter of a nuclear Iran, an ascendant Islamic State threatening stability in Jordan, an Islamist takeover of much of Syria, the deployment of Iranian-bolstered Hezbollah forces on the Golan, growing jihadist dominance of Sinai, and burgeoning anti-Semitism across Europe (or as The Guesser calls it - "Fear-Mongering" (SIC)), the national media somehow found it appropriate to focus almost exclusively on “strategically crucial” issues such as who received (gasp) $1,000 paid for recycled bottles from the PM’s official residence, whether Sara Netanyahu’s hairdos were excessively costly, or whether the prime minister’s garden furniture had been purchased in strict accordance with prescribed guidelines.
Really? While I would not wish to belittle, in anyway, the need for personal integrity of public officials and for keeping a stringent lookout to ensure the judicious use of taxpayers’ hardearned money – what we witnessed in the recent days was not a display of unbiased investigative journalism.
It was a carefully choreographed and coordinated attempt at a political putsch by the press.
It is difficult to find any other explanation to account for the scope and intensity of the extraordinary media circus – or perhaps more accurately feeding frenzy – the public has been subjected to.
The insanity reached an astounding crescendo with Tuesday’s publication of the State Comptroller’s Report on the expenses for the upkeep of prime minister residences.
True, the report was newsworthy, and should have been reported – but the wildly excessive attention devoted to it revealed a disturbing imbalance in the nation’s mainstream media.
True, the press in Israel has never been suspected of political neutrality, or accused of nonpartisan objectivity.
This was vividly illustrated in the protective blackout of negative reporting on Arik Sharon, openly – and scandalously – admitted by prominent figures in both the printed and electronic media, when Sharon decided on the 2005 unilateral pullout from Gaza.
Much the same could be said for the pervasive permissiveness of the press towards the left-leaning Ehud Olmert, who despite his initial criminal conviction, was embraced – indeed, touted – as a worthy candidate for reelection for prime minister, who could successfully challenge Netanyahu.
But in the run-up to the election, the blatant bias of the media has exceeded all previous bounds, not only as to what and how intensively it chooses to cover in the news, but as to what it chooses to downplay and even omit, all in an endeavor to impose its worldview – and that of allied left-leaning elites – on a recalcitrant electorate.
Recent events raise deeply disturbing questions as to the conduct and professional integrity of Israel’s mainstream opinion-makers.
Indeed, they will do little to boost public trust in the media’s professed ability to fulfill its role as the nation’s watchdog. Depending on one’s political proclivities, the media are increasingly perceived as the lapdog (of the Left) or attack dog (against the Right).
The public trust in the media is among the lowest for any of the country’s institutions – far lower than that for the political establishment, whether government, Knesset and – yes even the prime minster.
The press should have much room for soul-searching when it comes to its credibility.
According to the distinctly leftist Israel Democracy Institute, public trust in the media plummeted from just under 50% in 2013 to barely 25% in 2014, the lowest of all institutions surveyed.
Its antics in the past few days illustrate why this is so.
Consider: This was the first audit of its kind by the state comptroller of expenses incurred for the running/ maintenance of the prime minister’s residence( s) ever compiled, “mysteriously” made public just weeks before the general election.
The inauspicious (or auspicious – depending on one’s political predilections) timing of the release of the report lends strong credence to claims by Netanyahu’s associates that this was the result of strong, sustained pressure from media sources on the comptroller to do so.
Curiouser and curiouser…
Nowhere in the report, or in the savage coverage that accompanied it, was there any reference to the behavior of previous prime ministers, who held office over the last quarter century – none of whom was renowned for his frugality.
The hedonistic habits of Arik Sharon, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert were hardly a state secret. Likewise, the late Yitzhak Rabin’s wife, Leah, was never known for endearing personal traits or modesty in matters materialistic.
Yet none of these cases – all of which stood in stark contrast to the rigorous asceticism of their predecessors such as Menachem Begin or Yitzhak Shamir – were mentioned as criterion for comparison to give context to the comptroller’s criticism.
The fact that the expenses incurred for upkeep of the prime minister’s residences were dwarfed by those the state comptroller found for the upkeep of the residence of president Shimon Peres was glibly glossed over, and accentuated even further the sense of adversarial double standards being applied to Netanyahu.
But perhaps the most remarkable – and revealing – event in this sorry saga is the case of Meni Naftali, a disgruntled former employee, who was head caretaker of the Prime Minister’s Residence, and who is suing the Netanyahus over a number of labor grievances.
On the evening of the publication of the State Comptroller’s Report, Naftali, accompanied by his lawyer, reportedly closely associated with far-left organizations in Israel, was able to organize a televised press conference that was covered, in real-time, on all three national TV channels, in which he gave an unflattering account of life in the Netanyahu household.
Anyone remotely familiar with Israeli media will know how extraordinarily difficult it would be to pull off such a PR feat – even when far weightier issues than a personal labor dispute of a mid-level civil servant are involved.
It is hard to conceive of any reason why anyone in the position held by Naftali would be given such massive media exposure unless his appearance could be used to blacken the image of the prime minister.
On Wednesday, reports began to surface that cast grave doubts as to the veracity of Naftali’s allegations, and raise equally grave suspicions as to the media’s improper involvement in propagating them.
Maverick investigative journalist Yoav Yitzhak, of the Hebrew-language News1 website, revealed that Naftali had submitted contradictory versions in two different court cases as to his reasons for leaving the employment of the Prime Minister’s Office.
Thus, in a 2014 affidavit relating to the labor dispute with the Netanyahu family, Naftali cites humiliating treatment and broken promises as the reason for his resignation. By contrast, in an earlier 2013 declaration, in a criminal case against his father, who was convicted of stabbing a neighbor, he stated that he resigned to help his family.
These stark inconsistencies spurred Yitzhak to write the following withering indictment of Naftali and mainstream media: “These documents prove that, in contrast to the false version that he [Naftali] gave in recent days to several media channels, and to the court, the truth he is trying to conceal is very simple: Meni Naftali – as we will soon show – states himself, that he resigned from his position at the Prime Minister’s Residence in order to help his father, Naftali Naftali, who was involved in violent crimes, for which he was convicted and imprisoned.
“From Meni Naftali’s conduct, it is clear he has been lying to the public for months in an attempt to incriminate Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his wife, Sara Netanyahu.
Naftali teamed up with various elements, including Yediot Aharonot, Channel 10 and Channel 2 to remove Netanyahu from office.
This collaboration involved the close coverage he received from these media channels, without his grave allegations being corroborated by appropriate journalistic tools.”
The very first column I wrote in this “Into the Fray” series was titled “Distorting democracy” (July 28, 2011). On reading through it recently, I was – perhaps immodestly – struck by how relevant much of it seems today. I cannot resist repeating some of it here.
I wrote then: “Israel’s democracy is under assault… The real threat to Israeli democracy arises from those who aspire to put themselves above it – a tyrannical clique… which considers itself unbound by the results of the democratic process. It is a threat that flows from an arrogant class of an unelected – but empowered – few, whose self-perceived moral and intellectual superiority instills in them the belief that they have the right – indeed the duty – to subvert the choice of the ‘unwashed’ electorate. It is a threat that emerges from a privileged minority imbued with unbridled conviction that they are permitted – even obliged – to impose their worldview on the nation, undeterred by its rejection at the polls and with no qualms about enlisting foreign elements to apply punitive measures against their country until it submits to their will.”
The final sentence of this citation is laden with ominous significance – especially when domestic anti-Netanyahu elements are collaborating with foreign-funded groups like V15.
It opens up a myriad of topics each of which merits an entire column on its own. Sadly, I will have defer dealing with them to another time – and subject to breaking news – I hope prior to March 17.
The choice: Foretold disappointment or untold disaster
Let us conclude by conveying what I see as the bleak, but inevitable, choice confronting the concerned, involved voter next month.
Netanyahu is a deeply flawed candidate for prime minister – and I have expressed my disappointment with his performance repeatedly in this column. I suspect that if he is reelected, he will again disappoint.
However, real life is composed of available alternatives. Today, the only feasible alternative is vastly worse, by orders of magnitude.
Handing the reins of power to the Herzog- Livni duo and the motley assortment of unprincipled failures and unabashed anti-Zionists who comprise their Knesset candidates list would be a disaster of untold proportions.
That then is the choice: foretold disappointment or untold disaster – and that is not a difficult choice at all.
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.org) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. (www.strategicisrael.org)
Into the fray: Coup d’état?
By Martin Sherman, JPOST
Fifty-one percent of the respondents polled in the survey indicated that Binyamin Netanyahu was the candidate most suited to be prime minister. 28% stated that Isaac “Buji” Herzog is most suited… – Channel 2 poll, February 16
Israel’s democracy is under assault… The greatest danger to Israeli democracy emanates from those masquerading as its champions. – From “Distorting democracy,” The Jerusalem Post, July 28, 2011
Over the last few weeks, Israeli democracy has been under brutal and sustained attack in a desperate effort to subvert the will of the people.
What we are witnessing is, in effect, little less than an attempt at a bloodless coup d’état – conducted, not by the military, but by the messianic, indeed manic, mainstream media, buttressed by affiliated like-minded civil society elites (blowhards like Guesser), in a frenzied effort to impose their minority worldview on the nation.
Enraged by their inability to rally sufficient public support, on substantive policy issues, to unseat the object of their visceral enmity, Benjamin Netanyahu, and nonplussed by the tenacity of his “delinquent” hold on the premiership, despite their undisguised loathing, his political rivals have despaired of removing him from office by normal electoral means.
Instead, they have descended into an unprecedented nadir of mean-spirited malevolence in Israeli public life.
Rather than engaging in a substantive debate on how to conduct the affairs of the nation, they have embarked on a dishonorable – the less charitable might say “disgraceful” – attempt to oust a prime minister by means of a maelstrom of petty and pernicious ad hominem attacks. These have been directed not only against Netanyahu but, principally, against his spouse, who – whatever her character defects may (or may not) be, is hardly a relevant factor in determining his ability to govern.
Ignoring ISIS, Iran and Islamists…
Devoid of any persuasive policy alternative of real substance, and of alternative candidate of authentic stature, Netanyahu’s left-leaning detractors have mobilized to exploit their unelected positions of power and privilege to launch a massive media blitz against him and his wife – with the naked intention of degrading his political stature by denigrating his/her alleged personal excesses.
Thus, in a country gearing for elections, facing the specter of a nuclear Iran, an ascendant Islamic State threatening stability in Jordan, an Islamist takeover of much of Syria, the deployment of Iranian-bolstered Hezbollah forces on the Golan, growing jihadist dominance of Sinai, and burgeoning anti-Semitism across Europe (or as The Guesser calls it - "Fear-Mongering" (SIC)), the national media somehow found it appropriate to focus almost exclusively on “strategically crucial” issues such as who received (gasp) $1,000 paid for recycled bottles from the PM’s official residence, whether Sara Netanyahu’s hairdos were excessively costly, or whether the prime minister’s garden furniture had been purchased in strict accordance with prescribed guidelines.
Really? While I would not wish to belittle, in anyway, the need for personal integrity of public officials and for keeping a stringent lookout to ensure the judicious use of taxpayers’ hardearned money – what we witnessed in the recent days was not a display of unbiased investigative journalism.
It was a carefully choreographed and coordinated attempt at a political putsch by the press.
It is difficult to find any other explanation to account for the scope and intensity of the extraordinary media circus – or perhaps more accurately feeding frenzy – the public has been subjected to.
The insanity reached an astounding crescendo with Tuesday’s publication of the State Comptroller’s Report on the expenses for the upkeep of prime minister residences.
True, the report was newsworthy, and should have been reported – but the wildly excessive attention devoted to it revealed a disturbing imbalance in the nation’s mainstream media.
True, the press in Israel has never been suspected of political neutrality, or accused of nonpartisan objectivity.
This was vividly illustrated in the protective blackout of negative reporting on Arik Sharon, openly – and scandalously – admitted by prominent figures in both the printed and electronic media, when Sharon decided on the 2005 unilateral pullout from Gaza.
Much the same could be said for the pervasive permissiveness of the press towards the left-leaning Ehud Olmert, who despite his initial criminal conviction, was embraced – indeed, touted – as a worthy candidate for reelection for prime minister, who could successfully challenge Netanyahu.
But in the run-up to the election, the blatant bias of the media has exceeded all previous bounds, not only as to what and how intensively it chooses to cover in the news, but as to what it chooses to downplay and even omit, all in an endeavor to impose its worldview – and that of allied left-leaning elites – on a recalcitrant electorate.
Recent events raise deeply disturbing questions as to the conduct and professional integrity of Israel’s mainstream opinion-makers.
Indeed, they will do little to boost public trust in the media’s professed ability to fulfill its role as the nation’s watchdog. Depending on one’s political proclivities, the media are increasingly perceived as the lapdog (of the Left) or attack dog (against the Right).
The public trust in the media is among the lowest for any of the country’s institutions – far lower than that for the political establishment, whether government, Knesset and – yes even the prime minster.
The press should have much room for soul-searching when it comes to its credibility.
According to the distinctly leftist Israel Democracy Institute, public trust in the media plummeted from just under 50% in 2013 to barely 25% in 2014, the lowest of all institutions surveyed.
Its antics in the past few days illustrate why this is so.
Consider: This was the first audit of its kind by the state comptroller of expenses incurred for the running/ maintenance of the prime minister’s residence( s) ever compiled, “mysteriously” made public just weeks before the general election.
The inauspicious (or auspicious – depending on one’s political predilections) timing of the release of the report lends strong credence to claims by Netanyahu’s associates that this was the result of strong, sustained pressure from media sources on the comptroller to do so.
Curiouser and curiouser…
Nowhere in the report, or in the savage coverage that accompanied it, was there any reference to the behavior of previous prime ministers, who held office over the last quarter century – none of whom was renowned for his frugality.
The hedonistic habits of Arik Sharon, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert were hardly a state secret. Likewise, the late Yitzhak Rabin’s wife, Leah, was never known for endearing personal traits or modesty in matters materialistic.
Yet none of these cases – all of which stood in stark contrast to the rigorous asceticism of their predecessors such as Menachem Begin or Yitzhak Shamir – were mentioned as criterion for comparison to give context to the comptroller’s criticism.
The fact that the expenses incurred for upkeep of the prime minister’s residences were dwarfed by those the state comptroller found for the upkeep of the residence of president Shimon Peres was glibly glossed over, and accentuated even further the sense of adversarial double standards being applied to Netanyahu.
But perhaps the most remarkable – and revealing – event in this sorry saga is the case of Meni Naftali, a disgruntled former employee, who was head caretaker of the Prime Minister’s Residence, and who is suing the Netanyahus over a number of labor grievances.
On the evening of the publication of the State Comptroller’s Report, Naftali, accompanied by his lawyer, reportedly closely associated with far-left organizations in Israel, was able to organize a televised press conference that was covered, in real-time, on all three national TV channels, in which he gave an unflattering account of life in the Netanyahu household.
Anyone remotely familiar with Israeli media will know how extraordinarily difficult it would be to pull off such a PR feat – even when far weightier issues than a personal labor dispute of a mid-level civil servant are involved.
It is hard to conceive of any reason why anyone in the position held by Naftali would be given such massive media exposure unless his appearance could be used to blacken the image of the prime minister.
On Wednesday, reports began to surface that cast grave doubts as to the veracity of Naftali’s allegations, and raise equally grave suspicions as to the media’s improper involvement in propagating them.
Maverick investigative journalist Yoav Yitzhak, of the Hebrew-language News1 website, revealed that Naftali had submitted contradictory versions in two different court cases as to his reasons for leaving the employment of the Prime Minister’s Office.
Thus, in a 2014 affidavit relating to the labor dispute with the Netanyahu family, Naftali cites humiliating treatment and broken promises as the reason for his resignation. By contrast, in an earlier 2013 declaration, in a criminal case against his father, who was convicted of stabbing a neighbor, he stated that he resigned to help his family.
These stark inconsistencies spurred Yitzhak to write the following withering indictment of Naftali and mainstream media: “These documents prove that, in contrast to the false version that he [Naftali] gave in recent days to several media channels, and to the court, the truth he is trying to conceal is very simple: Meni Naftali – as we will soon show – states himself, that he resigned from his position at the Prime Minister’s Residence in order to help his father, Naftali Naftali, who was involved in violent crimes, for which he was convicted and imprisoned.
“From Meni Naftali’s conduct, it is clear he has been lying to the public for months in an attempt to incriminate Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his wife, Sara Netanyahu.
Naftali teamed up with various elements, including Yediot Aharonot, Channel 10 and Channel 2 to remove Netanyahu from office.
This collaboration involved the close coverage he received from these media channels, without his grave allegations being corroborated by appropriate journalistic tools.”
The very first column I wrote in this “Into the Fray” series was titled “Distorting democracy” (July 28, 2011). On reading through it recently, I was – perhaps immodestly – struck by how relevant much of it seems today. I cannot resist repeating some of it here.
I wrote then: “Israel’s democracy is under assault… The real threat to Israeli democracy arises from those who aspire to put themselves above it – a tyrannical clique… which considers itself unbound by the results of the democratic process. It is a threat that flows from an arrogant class of an unelected – but empowered – few, whose self-perceived moral and intellectual superiority instills in them the belief that they have the right – indeed the duty – to subvert the choice of the ‘unwashed’ electorate. It is a threat that emerges from a privileged minority imbued with unbridled conviction that they are permitted – even obliged – to impose their worldview on the nation, undeterred by its rejection at the polls and with no qualms about enlisting foreign elements to apply punitive measures against their country until it submits to their will.”
The final sentence of this citation is laden with ominous significance – especially when domestic anti-Netanyahu elements are collaborating with foreign-funded groups like V15.
It opens up a myriad of topics each of which merits an entire column on its own. Sadly, I will have defer dealing with them to another time – and subject to breaking news – I hope prior to March 17.
The choice: Foretold disappointment or untold disaster
Let us conclude by conveying what I see as the bleak, but inevitable, choice confronting the concerned, involved voter next month.
Netanyahu is a deeply flawed candidate for prime minister – and I have expressed my disappointment with his performance repeatedly in this column. I suspect that if he is reelected, he will again disappoint.
However, real life is composed of available alternatives. Today, the only feasible alternative is vastly worse, by orders of magnitude.
Handing the reins of power to the Herzog- Livni duo and the motley assortment of unprincipled failures and unabashed anti-Zionists who comprise their Knesset candidates list would be a disaster of untold proportions.
That then is the choice: foretold disappointment or untold disaster – and that is not a difficult choice at all.
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.org) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. (www.strategicisrael.org)
You're sinking more and more into the territory that your Pathetically Lying Buds exist in, in this forum, just Lying unabashadly. NOT ONCE Have I attacked Israel. Save that weak sauce for those that actually do. You sound like Sharpton crying Wolf/Racism at every turn, when it doesn't apply. I attack Bibi because he is bad for Israel. I hope enough Israelis come to their senses and help Israel, and save Israel from his horrible stewardship.
You're so fucking stupid you can't even reply without quoting the full article.
I'm still sinking eh? How original.
Keep squawking like a fervent follower of electronicintifada at everything Israel does while claiming you're a "proud supporter," while you continue to tug Obama's nuts and ignore Iran and every other danger facing Israel. "Crying wolf." What's it like to be the resident anti-Semite at Rx?
[h=1]Danino: There is scope for police probe into Netanyahu's conduct[/h] Police chief's comments come after lengthy testimony by former housekeeper Meni Naftali, who claimed state paid for private domestic help, expenses for entertaining guests were falsely inflated.
Aviel Magnezi
Israel Police Commissioner Yohanan Danino believes that there is room to open a formal police examination into the prime minister's conduct, in the wake of apparently damning testimony by a former housekeeper.
Danino's comments follow a 12-hour testimony to police by Meni Naftali that Benjamin and Sara Netanyahu used state funds to pay for private domestic help, took furniture purchased for the official residence and significantly inflated expenses for guests.
"On the face of it, there is scope to look into the matter," Danino said Sunday at a police ceremony in Jerusalem. However, Danino said, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein should be given room to "weigh all the material, including that received from the state comptroller."
Related articles:
"We gathered Naftali's testimony over many hours," Danino said. "The material was to be handed this morning to the attorney general, and there it will have to be reviewed, and checked what has been added to the material that we received from the state comptroller. It is difficult to assess (it) without seeing the material from the comptroller. The attorney general will have to make a decision."
Asked about Naftali's testimony, the police chief said: "Ultimately, calling it an examination or investigation is from our perspective the same thing, as a large proportion of investigations begin as examinations. On the face of it, there is scope for an examination, but the attorney general will have to decide."
Meni Naftali spent 12 hours Thursday afternoon and Friday morning at the National Fraud Investigations Unit, detailing events during his time in service for the Netanyahus.
Naftali, who has been granted immunity from prosecution, outlined the couple's conduct in the official residence, as well as tasks he was required to perform, which he claims are prima facie evidence of criminal offenses committed in the prime minister's official residence.
"There is no escaping a criminal investigation of the prime minister's conduct," senior legal sources said Saturday, adding that that at the very least, the deputy director of the Prime Minister's Office, Ezra Seidoff, should be called in for questioning under caution.
Sara and Benjamin Netanyahu (Photo: AP)
In his testimony, Naftali claimed that over the years were a series of requests for and use of state money for the private needs of the Netanyahu family. He cited the example of a member of the domestic staff at the prime minister's residence who had cared for Sara Netanyahu's father for many years. The woman's salary came to NIS 10,000 per month, and was paid for as part of the cleaning expense account for the prime minister's residence.
It was only much later, Naftali said, that the prime minister's staff concluded that this was payment problematic, after which the Netanyahu family paid the salary privately.
Furthermore, Naftali claimed, there was a system of inflating expenses for guests of the Netanyahu family at the prime minister's residence. The former house manager said there was a certain budget for hosting Israeli officials and another, almost double, for entertaining foreign guests. He said that in many cases the number of guests and their nationalities were exaggerated, ensuring artificially higher reimbursement from the state. For example, he said, if Netanyahu had hosted four guests, it was reported that there had been ten. On other occasions, Naftali said, visitors were declared as foreign officials although in reality they were guests from Israel.
Naftali also told investigators that Sara Netanyahu asked him to take care of cleaning supplies and equipment for their private home in Caesarea. He said that, as with garden furniture that had been moved to the private residence, he was required to do something similar with outside heating equipment, wine glasses and candles - he bought them and took them himself to the Netanyahu family home in Caesarea.
Aviel Magnezi
| |
Danino's comments follow a 12-hour testimony to police by Meni Naftali that Benjamin and Sara Netanyahu used state funds to pay for private domestic help, took furniture purchased for the official residence and significantly inflated expenses for guests.
"On the face of it, there is scope to look into the matter," Danino said Sunday at a police ceremony in Jerusalem. However, Danino said, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein should be given room to "weigh all the material, including that received from the state comptroller."
Related articles:
- Netanyahu attorney refutes comptroller's report
- Netanyahu's electability suffers blow after damning report
- Comptroller: Netanyahu family spending raises criminal concerns
"We gathered Naftali's testimony over many hours," Danino said. "The material was to be handed this morning to the attorney general, and there it will have to be reviewed, and checked what has been added to the material that we received from the state comptroller. It is difficult to assess (it) without seeing the material from the comptroller. The attorney general will have to make a decision."
Asked about Naftali's testimony, the police chief said: "Ultimately, calling it an examination or investigation is from our perspective the same thing, as a large proportion of investigations begin as examinations. On the face of it, there is scope for an examination, but the attorney general will have to decide."
Meni Naftali spent 12 hours Thursday afternoon and Friday morning at the National Fraud Investigations Unit, detailing events during his time in service for the Netanyahus.
Naftali, who has been granted immunity from prosecution, outlined the couple's conduct in the official residence, as well as tasks he was required to perform, which he claims are prima facie evidence of criminal offenses committed in the prime minister's official residence.
"There is no escaping a criminal investigation of the prime minister's conduct," senior legal sources said Saturday, adding that that at the very least, the deputy director of the Prime Minister's Office, Ezra Seidoff, should be called in for questioning under caution.
Sara and Benjamin Netanyahu (Photo: AP)
In his testimony, Naftali claimed that over the years were a series of requests for and use of state money for the private needs of the Netanyahu family. He cited the example of a member of the domestic staff at the prime minister's residence who had cared for Sara Netanyahu's father for many years. The woman's salary came to NIS 10,000 per month, and was paid for as part of the cleaning expense account for the prime minister's residence.
It was only much later, Naftali said, that the prime minister's staff concluded that this was payment problematic, after which the Netanyahu family paid the salary privately.
Furthermore, Naftali claimed, there was a system of inflating expenses for guests of the Netanyahu family at the prime minister's residence. The former house manager said there was a certain budget for hosting Israeli officials and another, almost double, for entertaining foreign guests. He said that in many cases the number of guests and their nationalities were exaggerated, ensuring artificially higher reimbursement from the state. For example, he said, if Netanyahu had hosted four guests, it was reported that there had been ten. On other occasions, Naftali said, visitors were declared as foreign officials although in reality they were guests from Israel.
I've attacked Putin, Kim Jong, The Insane Iran Mullahs, Asad, Obama, Netanyahu, just to name some off the top of my head. All you do is obsessively attack Obama to fit in with the sickos down here. Does that make you anti American, attacking America's leader?? Of course not. Only a sick mind, that is intolerant of other views, would think that, and that's what you are swimming in now with your Anti Semetic BS. Own it, because that's what you are. Sick and pathetic like your Buds. Congrats on completing the transition.
[h=1]Their View: Netanyahu dives off the diplomatic deep end[/h] By Trudy Rubin
February 21, 2015
Benjamin Netanyahu wants to make sure President Barack Obama doesn’t ink a nuclear deal with Tehran. Any nuclear deal.
In an effort to prevent such a deal, the Israeli prime minister has used unprecedented means to do an end run around the White House. His ambassador to Washington (and right-hand man), Ron Dermer, schemed with Republican House Speaker John Boehner to have Netanyahu address a joint session of Congress — on March 3 — without first informing the White House. That stunning breach of protocol still has Washington buzzing.
The Dermer-Boehner end run is shameful on four counts. It insults the office of the U.S. presidency. It inserts Netanyahu into partisan U.S. politics (he becomes a tool for Boehner to thwack Obama) and inserts the Republicans into Israeli politics (the speech comes just two weeks before the March 17 Israeli elections, giving Netanyahu a chance to grandstand).
And it could undercut the security interests of the United States.
“The way Netanyahu did it, hiding the whole initiative from the White House, conducting it as a kind of plot between the (Israeli) embassy and Capitol Hill was a great blunder,” says Nahum Barnea, one of Israel’s top political columnists. “Even Fox News said the insult to the presidency was too much for them.”
Israel prides itself on the bipartisan support it receives in Congress. And despite the famously tense relationship between Netanyahu and Obama, the president has twisted himself into a pretzel providing military and diplomatic support for Israel, often casting vetoes at the United Nations as the lone vote against resolutions Israel opposes.
So why would Netanyahu publicly align himself with the Republican Party against a president whom Israel must deal with for two more years? What is going on?
“For Netanyahu, the issue of the nuclearization of Iran is almost an obsession,” says the Israeli columnist. The diplomatic norms of conducting business with the United States were overshadowed “by Netanyahu’s frustration that he can’t dictate to the United States the endgame he wishes would happen” in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.
“He would like the United States to force Iran to abandon its nuclear project and he knows it won’t happen,” says Barnea. “President Obama has a different policy. He believes he should negotiate. The U.S. public is not looking for another war in the Middle East.”
So here we come to the heart of the matter: the different perspectives between Israel and the United States on how to deal with Iran.
Netanyahu believes that Iran is an existential security threat to Israel and its suspect nuclear program must be entirely eliminated. If that were possible, it would be a good thing. But unfortunately, the prospects for such a draconian accord had already vanished by the time George W. Bush left office. No Iranian leaders will sign it.
So the Obama administration seeks an agreement that will require Iran to substantially reduce its program and stocks of low-enriched uranium, and provide for very intrusive inspections. The goal: to ensure it would take Iran at least one year to produce enough nuclear material for a single weapon, should it decide to cheat.
We will know shortly whether such a deal is possible. The odds at best are 50-50. The deadline for ongoing talks is in June, and a framework accord is supposed to be signed by March 24.
But Netanyahu has long made clear he’d prefer to see a U.S. military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. (Most analysts, including Barnea, doubt Israel would attack Iran alone.) Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates tellingly recounts in his memoir, “Duty,” how Netanyahu told him a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would likely trigger the regime’s overthrow — and that Iranian retaliation after a strike would probably be pro forma.
Gates recounts that he strongly disagreed on both counts, telling Netanyahu that a strike would rally Iranians behind the regime, and an attack was more likely to spark a war in the region. I agree.
So from the U.S. perspective, these negotiations are vital. Obviously, a deal should not give away the store, and sanctions can’t be removed quickly. The gaps between the two sides may prove impossible to close, but the effort must be made. Netanyahu, on the other hand, wanted Congress to undercut any possible deal before it was drafted — by passing new sanctions at a critical time in the talks. No doubt he would have urged such action on Feb. 11 — the initial date Boehner invited him to speak.
The brouhaha over his invitation led that date to be pushed back to March 3, and any congressional vote pushed back until after the March 24 deadline. But, unless Boehner is ready to endorse a new Mideast war, he should cease playing partisan politics with a subject as important as the Iran talks. Netanyahu’s address to Congress should be postponed until after Israeli elections, and the negotiations given a last chance to work.
Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial board member for The Philadelphia Inquirer. Readers may write her at P.O. Box 8263, Philadelphia, PA 19101, or by email at trubin@phillynews.com.
February 21, 2015
Benjamin Netanyahu wants to make sure President Barack Obama doesn’t ink a nuclear deal with Tehran. Any nuclear deal.
In an effort to prevent such a deal, the Israeli prime minister has used unprecedented means to do an end run around the White House. His ambassador to Washington (and right-hand man), Ron Dermer, schemed with Republican House Speaker John Boehner to have Netanyahu address a joint session of Congress — on March 3 — without first informing the White House. That stunning breach of protocol still has Washington buzzing.
The Dermer-Boehner end run is shameful on four counts. It insults the office of the U.S. presidency. It inserts Netanyahu into partisan U.S. politics (he becomes a tool for Boehner to thwack Obama) and inserts the Republicans into Israeli politics (the speech comes just two weeks before the March 17 Israeli elections, giving Netanyahu a chance to grandstand).
And it could undercut the security interests of the United States.
“The way Netanyahu did it, hiding the whole initiative from the White House, conducting it as a kind of plot between the (Israeli) embassy and Capitol Hill was a great blunder,” says Nahum Barnea, one of Israel’s top political columnists. “Even Fox News said the insult to the presidency was too much for them.”
Israel prides itself on the bipartisan support it receives in Congress. And despite the famously tense relationship between Netanyahu and Obama, the president has twisted himself into a pretzel providing military and diplomatic support for Israel, often casting vetoes at the United Nations as the lone vote against resolutions Israel opposes.
So why would Netanyahu publicly align himself with the Republican Party against a president whom Israel must deal with for two more years? What is going on?
“For Netanyahu, the issue of the nuclearization of Iran is almost an obsession,” says the Israeli columnist. The diplomatic norms of conducting business with the United States were overshadowed “by Netanyahu’s frustration that he can’t dictate to the United States the endgame he wishes would happen” in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.
“He would like the United States to force Iran to abandon its nuclear project and he knows it won’t happen,” says Barnea. “President Obama has a different policy. He believes he should negotiate. The U.S. public is not looking for another war in the Middle East.”
So here we come to the heart of the matter: the different perspectives between Israel and the United States on how to deal with Iran.
Netanyahu believes that Iran is an existential security threat to Israel and its suspect nuclear program must be entirely eliminated. If that were possible, it would be a good thing. But unfortunately, the prospects for such a draconian accord had already vanished by the time George W. Bush left office. No Iranian leaders will sign it.
So the Obama administration seeks an agreement that will require Iran to substantially reduce its program and stocks of low-enriched uranium, and provide for very intrusive inspections. The goal: to ensure it would take Iran at least one year to produce enough nuclear material for a single weapon, should it decide to cheat.
We will know shortly whether such a deal is possible. The odds at best are 50-50. The deadline for ongoing talks is in June, and a framework accord is supposed to be signed by March 24.
But Netanyahu has long made clear he’d prefer to see a U.S. military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. (Most analysts, including Barnea, doubt Israel would attack Iran alone.) Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates tellingly recounts in his memoir, “Duty,” how Netanyahu told him a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would likely trigger the regime’s overthrow — and that Iranian retaliation after a strike would probably be pro forma.
Gates recounts that he strongly disagreed on both counts, telling Netanyahu that a strike would rally Iranians behind the regime, and an attack was more likely to spark a war in the region. I agree.
So from the U.S. perspective, these negotiations are vital. Obviously, a deal should not give away the store, and sanctions can’t be removed quickly. The gaps between the two sides may prove impossible to close, but the effort must be made. Netanyahu, on the other hand, wanted Congress to undercut any possible deal before it was drafted — by passing new sanctions at a critical time in the talks. No doubt he would have urged such action on Feb. 11 — the initial date Boehner invited him to speak.
The brouhaha over his invitation led that date to be pushed back to March 3, and any congressional vote pushed back until after the March 24 deadline. But, unless Boehner is ready to endorse a new Mideast war, he should cease playing partisan politics with a subject as important as the Iran talks. Netanyahu’s address to Congress should be postponed until after Israeli elections, and the negotiations given a last chance to work.
Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial board member for The Philadelphia Inquirer. Readers may write her at P.O. Box 8263, Philadelphia, PA 19101, or by email at trubin@phillynews.com.
[h=1]Boehner-Netanyahu power play helping Iran[/h]
22 hours ago • By Jason Stanford / Special to The Telegram
What would it look like if politics stopped at the water's edge? It wouldn't look like the mess that John Boehner created by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a session of Congress on March 3. By allowing Netanyahu to stage what is effectively a campaign event in the U.S. Capitol, congressional Republicans have not only damaged our relations with Israel, but threatened our diplomatic negotiations with Iran.
Even for Boehner, who gets a gold star when he doesn't let the government shut down, this is a big screw up.
It's one thing to turn an attack on the U.S. into a partisan drinking word — BENGHAZI!! — but we can all agree that Israel is an important ally, and Iran should never have a nuclear bomb. By trying to one-up Obama, Boehner exposed how much he's willing to put political gamesmanship ahead of adult statesmanship.
With about two weeks before Netanyahu's speech, it's getting tense:
Joe Biden made up an excuse about a prearranged trip to a country to be named later, so it doesn't look like he's taking sides in Israel's upcoming elections.
Haaretz, the leading English-language source for news about Israel, wrote that the Boehner-Netanyahu power play is "sabotaging Israel's most precious asset," that is, close relations with the United States. The U.S. Ambassador has warned Israeli officials that, "Ultimately, this will have a price" if Netanyahu uses the U.S. Capitol as a stage to criticize ongoing U.S.-led diplomatic negotiations.
And though everyone would like this to be about a big partisan slap fight in D.C., the real threat isn't to our relationship with Israel. This is election-year posturing by Netanyahu. He needs votes, and then he'll need foreign aid. He'll get over it. The real problem is that by allowing himself to be used as a pawn by Obama's political enemies, Netanyahu is helping Iran.
"Unknowingly, Netanyahu has become the Iranians' secret weapon. If he didn't exist, the Iranians would have to invent him. Destroying the strategic alliance with America would be a real existential threat to Israel, but so far, he's much closer to leaving scorched earth in Washington than he is to stopping Iran's centrifuges. In this situation, Iranian leaders don't have to do a thing but sit in front of the television, eat popcorn and laugh," wrote Barak Ravid in Haaretz recently.
Oh yeah. Iran.
March is not just when Israelis go to the polls but the next deadline in the diplomatic efforts to keep Iran from building a nuclear bomb. Right now, the U.S. is leading six countries in seeking a negotiated settlement with Iran that would prevent them from becoming a member of the nuclear club. This effort, which began under George W. Bush, has kept Iran's nuclear program frozen in place for years.
These countries—Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, German, and the U.S.—are using a combination of sanctions, inspections, monitoring, and the ever-present threat of having drones move into the neighborhood to pressure Iran into giving up their capacity to enrich uranium. There are signs that we could be getting close to a deal.
But that's not good enough for those who would oppose breathing if Obama called for clean air. To be fair, conservatives think the only way to make their way in the world is first threatening and then using force. It's the whole "peace through strength" thing they go on about. Or they just want to forget the whole peace thing and go ahead and bomb Iran.
What they haven't said is how this ends if we do it their way. We can't bomb them into forgetting how to build a nuclear bomb. Should we disengage from diplomacy and just glare at them? Do we go to war and then, what, endlessly prop up a moderate government? The only way to keep Iran from getting the bomb is to negotiate it away.
That's a goal we should all be able to get behind, but by infecting diplomacy with partisanship, congressional Republicans are giving Iranians an excuse to walk away from the table which is exactly why politics should stop at the water's edge. United we stand, divided we grandstand.
22 hours ago • By Jason Stanford / Special to The Telegram
What would it look like if politics stopped at the water's edge? It wouldn't look like the mess that John Boehner created by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a session of Congress on March 3. By allowing Netanyahu to stage what is effectively a campaign event in the U.S. Capitol, congressional Republicans have not only damaged our relations with Israel, but threatened our diplomatic negotiations with Iran.
Even for Boehner, who gets a gold star when he doesn't let the government shut down, this is a big screw up.
It's one thing to turn an attack on the U.S. into a partisan drinking word — BENGHAZI!! — but we can all agree that Israel is an important ally, and Iran should never have a nuclear bomb. By trying to one-up Obama, Boehner exposed how much he's willing to put political gamesmanship ahead of adult statesmanship.
With about two weeks before Netanyahu's speech, it's getting tense:
Joe Biden made up an excuse about a prearranged trip to a country to be named later, so it doesn't look like he's taking sides in Israel's upcoming elections.
Haaretz, the leading English-language source for news about Israel, wrote that the Boehner-Netanyahu power play is "sabotaging Israel's most precious asset," that is, close relations with the United States. The U.S. Ambassador has warned Israeli officials that, "Ultimately, this will have a price" if Netanyahu uses the U.S. Capitol as a stage to criticize ongoing U.S.-led diplomatic negotiations.
And though everyone would like this to be about a big partisan slap fight in D.C., the real threat isn't to our relationship with Israel. This is election-year posturing by Netanyahu. He needs votes, and then he'll need foreign aid. He'll get over it. The real problem is that by allowing himself to be used as a pawn by Obama's political enemies, Netanyahu is helping Iran.
"Unknowingly, Netanyahu has become the Iranians' secret weapon. If he didn't exist, the Iranians would have to invent him. Destroying the strategic alliance with America would be a real existential threat to Israel, but so far, he's much closer to leaving scorched earth in Washington than he is to stopping Iran's centrifuges. In this situation, Iranian leaders don't have to do a thing but sit in front of the television, eat popcorn and laugh," wrote Barak Ravid in Haaretz recently.
Oh yeah. Iran.
March is not just when Israelis go to the polls but the next deadline in the diplomatic efforts to keep Iran from building a nuclear bomb. Right now, the U.S. is leading six countries in seeking a negotiated settlement with Iran that would prevent them from becoming a member of the nuclear club. This effort, which began under George W. Bush, has kept Iran's nuclear program frozen in place for years.
These countries—Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, German, and the U.S.—are using a combination of sanctions, inspections, monitoring, and the ever-present threat of having drones move into the neighborhood to pressure Iran into giving up their capacity to enrich uranium. There are signs that we could be getting close to a deal.
But that's not good enough for those who would oppose breathing if Obama called for clean air. To be fair, conservatives think the only way to make their way in the world is first threatening and then using force. It's the whole "peace through strength" thing they go on about. Or they just want to forget the whole peace thing and go ahead and bomb Iran.
What they haven't said is how this ends if we do it their way. We can't bomb them into forgetting how to build a nuclear bomb. Should we disengage from diplomacy and just glare at them? Do we go to war and then, what, endlessly prop up a moderate government? The only way to keep Iran from getting the bomb is to negotiate it away.
That's a goal we should all be able to get behind, but by infecting diplomacy with partisanship, congressional Republicans are giving Iranians an excuse to walk away from the table which is exactly why politics should stop at the water's edge. United we stand, divided we grandstand.
